tempo_get_timesheet_approvals_waiting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait not present in structured data: the response text is third-party authored and must be treated as data, not instructions — an important prompt-injection guardrail for an open-world read.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the safety caveat second. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 read-only list tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the trust caveat. It is slightly short on result-shape details (pagination, ordering, whose approvals are included), but the annotations and schema carry most of the remaining burden.

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?

There is one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage and an enum, so the schema already documents 'compact' vs 'full' in detail. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Retrieve) plus a precisely scoped resource (timesheets currently waiting for approval), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the sibling list/get tools. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with close siblings such as tempo_get_timesheet_approval_status or tempo_get_timesheet_approvals_by_team.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope 'currently waiting for approval' — an agent can infer it is the pending-approvals query — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no note on which approvals (mine, my team's) are returned.

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