List all pending approvals (unified rail)

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context: side-effect-free behavior, the unified aggregation semantics, normalized return shape with per-source counts, and the meaning of the actions array. It fully discloses what the tool does and what it cannot do, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 longer than average but front-loads the core purpose and organizes detail logically. Most sentences add distinctive value, though the CAPABILITY line and 'never approves or rejects' are slightly redundant with the annotations. Still, the density is justified for a multi-source aggregation tool.

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 compensates by specifying the exact common shape, per-source counts, and the actions array containing REST endpoints. It also gives full context about the four sources and how this tool relates to approval workflows, making it very complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% and both parameters already have descriptive enum-based documentation. The description adds a little context (e.g., 'narrows to one queue' and default PENDING) but mostly reinforces what the schema already states. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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?

Description states a specific verb (list/read) and resource (unified approvals rail across four sources) with a clear scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it only reads and never approves/rejects, with approve_draft/reject_draft named as the mutating alternatives.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use the tool (read-only view of pending approvals across all four automation sources) and provides exclusions: it never approves or rejects, and approval for non-posts sources remains a dashboard action. The optional source/status filters are also called out as selection mechanisms.

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