paperclip_list_approvals

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing pagination, filtering, and error responses. It does not discuss rate limits or other side effects, but overall adequately discloses behavior beyond 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?

Description is well-structured with separate sections for purpose, arguments, returns, examples, and error handling. It is not overly verbose, though some sections could be slightly condensed.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return envelope and item fields. Together with error handling and usage guidance, it provides a complete picture for the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful context: status is comma-separated with an example, and response_format details are clear. This elevates the score above baseline.

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 it lists approval requests for the current company, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool paperclip_get_approval in the 'Don't use when' section.

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?

Explicit when-to-use scenario (scanning pending approvals before escalation) and when-not-to-use (for single approval details, use paperclip_get_approval). Error handling also provides guidance on authentication and permission issues.

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