get_visitor_approvals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic retrieval operation without disclosing pagination behavior, default status filtering, or the shape of the response. The word 'Get' implies read-only, but the description does not confirm non-mutating behavior or provide any additional context beyond what the schema already offers.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or vague qualifiers, and every word adds meaning.

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 tool has five parameters and no output schema, so the description should ideally provide some context about the return shape or pagination behavior. While the schema fully documents parameters, the description does not mention what the response list contains, typical page sizes, or whether the 'status' filter defaults to a certain value. This is adequate for a simple getter but not fully complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond mapping 'flat' to flat_id and 'date' to the date parameter, which is already explicit in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 operation ('Get'), the resource ('visitor/guest approval entries'), and the scope ('for a flat on a given date'). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_approvals_count, which searches for approval counts rather than entry lists.

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 its use for listing approvals, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, such as get_approvals_count or other listing tools. The context of siblings is not referenced, and the description does not mention exclusions or scenarios where another tool is more appropriate.

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