list_pending_reviews

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the substantive behavioral load: every row is labeled 'PENDING — unverified', these values are unsafe to treat as facts or trends, and the unmapped=true subset has no marker type. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot express.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core definition and every sentence carries actionable information (data warning, approval path, unmapped branch, alternative reader). It is slightly dense — the field enumeration and the unmapped=true aside overlap with the output schema — but nothing is filler.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, this is complete: the agent knows what comes back, how to present it, why it must not be cited, and which sibling to use for approval or mapping. No gaps that would cause misuse.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing to disambiguate. The description instead characterizes output fields (including raw_name for unmapped rows), which is helpful context even though an output schema exists.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+state: lab values staged via stage_lab_panel but not yet approved. It enumerates the returned fields (marker, value, unit, date, status) and explicitly contrasts itself with query_observations for approved values, so the agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use rules: show these rows so the user can verify against the original report, never cite them as facts or use them in trends, approve via approve_staged_source, and read approved values with query_observations. It also branches on the unmapped=true case with a concrete next step (ask the user, then map_pending_observation).

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