list_approvals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists pending and completed approvals but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, or error handling. With the output schema present, the return structure is implied, but the description lacks explicit behavioral context.

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: one introductory sentence followed by parameter documentation. No wasted words, front-loaded with the purpose, and efficiently structured.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter details adequately. It does not explain return values (permitted since output schema exists) but could mention that it lists approvals for a specific request. Overall, it is complete for the complexity level.

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 fully. It provides explicit docstrings for each parameter: issue_id_or_key format ('X000' or numeric ID), start as pagination offset, limit with default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type and title.

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 'List pending and completed approvals for a customer request', specifying the verb (list), resource (approvals), and scope (by customer request). This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like get_approval (singular) and answer_approval.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_approval. It only implies usage for listing multiple approvals for a request, but no when-not-to-use or context for choosing siblings.

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