Get TOCA Approval

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The added value is the access-control disclosure that reads are scoped to records owned by the caller—useful behavioral context not present in the annotations. It stops short of noting failure modes (e.g., 404 vs. 403 on others' records), so not a 5.

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 8-word sentence that is fully front-loaded with the verb. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 tool of minimal complexity—1 required param, no output schema, no enums, no nested objects—the description covers the essential ground: the operation, the entity type, and the access boundary. Additional return-format detail would be nice but is not required by output constraints.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not mention approvalId. However, the resource noun 'ApprovalRecord' implicitly identifies what the ID references, and the single-parameter schema with a self-explanatory name is already clear. The description neither adds nor detracts meaningfully from the schema.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('one ApprovalRecord'), and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('owned by the authenticated requester'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like toca.workflow.get and toca.event.get, and conveys it returns a single record rather than a list.

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?

Usage context is only implied via the noun 'ApprovalRecord' and the ownership qualifier. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives statement, nor any exclusions (e.g., 'for listing use X'). For a simple fetch-by-ID tool this is adequate but not exemplary.

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