approval_request_get_count

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

No annotations exist. The description only states the purpose; it does not disclose behavioral traits such as what is counted, whether it scopes to a default organization, or any side effects. For a simple count tool, more transparency is needed.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for parameters or behavior) but is still 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the count represents (e.g., pending approval requests across all organizations or a specific one). It does not mention return format or scoping nuances, making it incomplete.

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 67%. Two parameters (organization_id, override_organization_id) have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning for any parameter, leaving include_child_organizations undocumented. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 'Get Approval Request Pending Count', which clearly identifies the resource (approval request) and action (get count). It distinguishes from siblings like approval_request_get_by_id (single record) and approval_request_get_by_parameters (list of records). However, it does not explicitly contrast with these 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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