approval_report

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the report covers high-risk writes with approver and rationale, defaults to high/critical-risk writes only, and is framed as a compliance artifact. It does not contradict the annotation and adds meaningful domain detail beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's read-only nature and purpose, briefly lists compliance relevance, then documents arguments compactly. Each sentence carries useful information, with only minor redundancy between the [READ] marker and the overall read-report framing.

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?

For a three-parameter, read-only reporting tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: what the report contains, the compliance use case, and the semantics of every argument. It does not describe pagination or exact response structure, but the core invocation context is complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents all three parameters meaningfully: since/until as ISO timestamps that bound the reporting period, and high_only as a filter where True means high/critical-risk writes only and False means all writes, including its default behavior.

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?

The description states a specific scope: a read-only report of high-risk write operations that includes approver and rationale, forming a change-approval trail. It clearly distinguishes the resource from generic audit/event siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast an alternative tool.

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?

The description implies compliance reporting use via SOC 2, PCI, and HIPAA references, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools such as query_audit_events or activity_timeline.

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