approval_report

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. The '[READ]' prefix indicates read-only safety, and the parameter documentation clarifies filtering behavior. However, it lacks details on data freshness, pagination, or response size, which are important for an agent to understand the tool's limitations.

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 concise with three distinct parts: a summary line, compliance context, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy in repeating compliance standards could be slightly trimmed, but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides a high-level indication of return structure ('the who/what/when/why/approval artifact') but does not specify exact fields or formatting. Important details like pagination, sorting, or error cases are missing, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 explains all three parameters: 'since / until: ISO timestamps' and 'high_only: True/False' with default. This adds sufficient semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, though the exact ISO 8601 format is implied rather than explicit.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a report of 'high-risk write ops with approver + rationale', explicitly linking it to compliance standards (SOC 2, PCI, HIPAA). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'query_audit_events' and 'activity_timeline' by focusing on approval trails for high-risk operations.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for compliance reporting (SOC 2, PCI, HIPAA), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. The compliance references imply usage scenarios, meeting the 'clear context, no exclusions' threshold.

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