rm_list_approvals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about submitted approvals and organization-wide scope, which is consistent with the annotations, but it does not clarify whether all approval statuses are included or how pagination behaves.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that states action, resource, and scope with no wasted words. It is immediately understandable and front-loads the core purpose.

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 list operation with output schema present and safe annotations, the description is mostly complete. Minor gaps remain, such as not clarifying what 'submitted' means in terms of approval statuses and not explaining pagination behavior, but these do not undermine the overall usability.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for page and per_page, and the tool description does not mention pagination at all. With two parameters and no schema-level descriptions, the description should compensate but instead provides no parameter semantics beyond the schema's names and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource ('submitted time entry and expense approvals'), and scopes it ('across the organization'). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like rm_list_expenses, which list raw expenses, and rm_create_approval, which creates approvals.

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 this tool is the right choice when an agent needs an org-wide view of approval items, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name any alternative. Pagination usage is also left to schema defaults rather than explained.

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