Pending approvals

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: totals come back as WorkMobile sends them with text redacted and an undocumented format, and record answers are withheld unless include_contact_details is set. The explicit warning that the totals format is undocumented is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs.

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 front-loaded sentences, each covering one mode, with no filler. It is dense with implementation references (GET /api/approvals/getinboxtotals, onlyMyPendingApprovals) that are useful but slightly noisy for an agent. Well structured but not maximally crisp.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly steps in to describe what each mode returns, including the redaction of text and answers and the never-returned bank/card/payment fields. Pagination details live in the schema. It is largely complete for this tool; only return-shape specifics for the undocumented totals format are left open (by necessity).

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 100%, so the schema already documents page, form_id, max_pages, max_results, and include_contact_details, including the max_results counting nuance. The description reinforces form_id's mode-switching role and the include_contact_details withholding behavior, but adds little the schema does not already say. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource and, unusually, splits the tool's purpose by mode: without form_id it returns approval inbox totals (badge counts), with form_id it returns the records awaiting the API user's approval. That is precise and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings like list_form_submissions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives an explicit conditional rule for which mode to use: omit form_id for inbox totals, supply form_id for the pending record list. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternative sibling tools or say when this tool is the wrong choice, so it is not a 5.

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