get_approval_history

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds that the tool returns sysapproval_approver rows and is ordered, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or response structure beyond that, so it adds some but not rich value.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the purpose, the scope, and the data source in an efficient manner.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It mentions the data source and ordering, which is sufficient given the lack of an output schema. It could mention the output format, but the tool name and description are adequate.

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 100%, so both parameters (record and limit) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'any record' and does not clarify parameter syntax further. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'approval progression/history' with a specific scope ('for any record') and mentions the underlying table. It is specific and distinguishable from siblings like list_approvals, though it does not explicitly name 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_approvals or get_my_approvals. It only implies usage via 'for any record', but does not state exclusions or name sibling tools. Given the many approval-related tools, this is a significant gap.

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