evaluate_pr_approval

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the call is a dry run (no state change), that it returns an `allowed` flag plus a reason, and enumerates the four reason codes. It omits behavior for invalid/missing gates and whether the result is cached, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded with the scope and return shape. The following two sentences are marketing/upsell copy ('3 printers (grow to 50)', upgrade URL); the tier requirement is useful, the rest 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 4-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers semantics and return values reasonably. However, two of four parameters (including a required one) go unexplained, and there is no note on what happens when no gate is configured on the PR's target branch.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only artifact_type has a default note). The description mentions only `pr_id` and ignores the required `target_branch_name`, plus `org_id` and `artifact_type` — exactly the gap the low coverage requires the description to fill.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource: 'Dry-run the approval gate on pr_id', and enumerates the possible outcomes. It is clearly a read-only evaluation, distinguishable from set_approval_gate / list_approval_gates, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Dry-run' implies non-mutating usage and the Business-tier requirement is stated up front. But there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus list_approval_gates, review_design_pull_request, or set_approval_gate, and no prerequisite about the PR already existing.

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