myob_approval_list_pending

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by specifying the statuses ('pending or approved') and the context ('awaiting user/accountant action'), which goes beyond the tool name. However, it does not explicitly disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe the response format, pagination, or ordering. Moderate transparency, with room for more detail.

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 description is a single 13-word sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and succinctly states the resource with the relevant status scope. Every word contributes to meaning, with no unnecessary filler or redundant information.

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 list operation with zero parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview. However, the phrase 'pending or approved' creates ambiguity: are these two separate statuses or a combined state? Additionally, it neither clarifies what fields will be returned nor whether the list includes any metadata. The description is minimally sufficient but not fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameter semantics to explain, the baseline of 4 is applied. The description correctly does not attempt to describe parameters, as none exist.

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 clearly identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('MYOB operations awaiting user/accountant action') with the status scope 'pending or approved'. This distinguishes it from siblings like myob_approval_get (single item) and approve/deny (action items). However, the inclusion of 'approved' in a tool named 'list_pending' introduces slight ambiguity about the exact set of items returned.

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 the use case: seeing operations that require attention. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as myob_approval_get, myob_approval_approve, or myob_approval_deny. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, making this merely implied rather than explicit.

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