Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The one value-add beyond structured data is disclosing the response shape ('the viewer's role and a canReview flag'), which is useful given there is no output schema, but no pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior is described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two well-front-loaded sentences carry the purpose, the sibling distinction, and the return shape. The trailing 'Read-only.' sentence is a small waste since annotations already state it, but nothing else is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the extra returned fields (role, canReview), which is the main omission it had to cover. However, with three loosely documented parameters and no pagination/ordering notes, it is only minimally complete for a list endpoint in a large tool surface.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 67%: brand_id has no description at all, and query is an open nested object (additionalProperties: true) described only as 'optional query overrides'. The description mentions 'in the workspace' but adds no filter, scoping, or format semantics for any of the three parameters, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List posts waiting for team sign-off in the workspace') and explicitly contrasts the scope with the closest sibling: individual posts in Team Approvals vs. batches in aidelly_get_approvals. An agent can distinguish it from the neighboring approval tools without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear routing rule: use this for individual pending posts, use aidelly_get_approvals for batches of generated content. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., whether brand_id/workspace_id scoping is expected) or exclusions, but the sibling disambiguation is the main selection question and it answers it directly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.