list_voice_pending_approvals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It reveals the tool is read-only (listing pending items), but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

One sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. Every word serves a purpose, no repetition or fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose for a simple, parameterless list operation. An output schema exists to detail return values. However, it doesn't mention pagination or default sorting, which might be relevant for completion.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter info because none exist. Baseline is 4, and the schema already fully documents the parameter's absence.

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 lists in-call HITL approvals pending caller-side decision. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('in-call HITL approvals'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_pending_approvals' and 'approve_voice_action'.

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 usage context (when needing to see pending in-call approvals) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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