approvals_get_approval_requests_v3

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the raw endpoint path "GET /approval/api/approvals", with no note on pagination defaults, search behavior, or whether filterEntitledRequests changes the result set.

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 short lines with the verb-resource statement front-loaded, so there is no waste. But the terseness comes at the cost of usefulness rather than from efficient information packing.

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?

Eight parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and a broad search/filter surface: an agent needs guidance on paging, default sort, and how the two approval-state filters interact. None of that is present, so the definition is not sufficient on its own.

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 75%, close to the high-coverage baseline, so the schema does most of the work. The description contributes nothing about the two undocumented enum filters (requestState, approverState) or about paging semantics, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond 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?

"Returns approval requests" restates the tool name with no added specificity. It does not distinguish this collection endpoint from close siblings such as approvals_get_work_items, approvals_get_approval_request_v3 or approvals_get_work_items_for_deployment.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for a single request versus a list. The agent is left to infer everything from the name and parameters.

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