list_approvals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries minimal additional burden. It does not add details about pagination, sorting, or result format beyond what the annotation implies. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though a bit more context could be added without losing efficiency.

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 simple tool and good schema/annotation coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention that the results may represent all approvals in the system or that filters are optional but typically used for large datasets. No output schema exists, but that is acceptable.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so the description adds only that all parameters are 'optional filters', which is already clear from the schema. No additional syntax or meaning is provided beyond the schema definitions.

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 approval requests with optional filters. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('List approval requests') and distinguishes it from siblings like approve_request, reject_request, and get_my_approvals by not focusing on a single user or 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_my_approvals or query_records. There is no indication of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer in specific scenarios.

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