List approvals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuinely useful fact beyond that — the results are limited to 'this agent's' proposals rather than all approvals — but says nothing about ordering, volume, pagination, or how pending and decided items are mixed in one response.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with no padding, which is good, but the compression has gone too far: a single elliptical clause carries the entire definition and reads as telegraphic rather than precise.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and a 0%-documented parameter, the description should explain what a result entry looks like, the default behavior when status is omitted, and whether results are paginated or ordered. None of that is present, so an agent must guess at the response shape.

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 0% and the description never mentions the status parameter or its pending/approved/rejected/expired values. The enum is largely self-explanatory, but the description does not state what omitting status returns, which is the one real ambiguity in a zero-required-parameter tool.

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 identifies the resource (this agent's proposals awaiting or decided by a person) but is a sentence fragment with no verb such as 'list' or 'returns', and the phrase 'that wait for a person' is awkward. It does implicitly separate this from list_decisions by scoping to the agent's own proposals, but the distinction is left for the agent to infer.

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 guidance on when to call this versus list_decisions, get_decision, or wait_for_decision, all of which sit adjacent in the sibling list and cover overlapping territory. The only implied usage cue is the word 'wait,' which hints at polling but is never stated.

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