passgage_list_approvals

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List approvals' without mentioning response format, default ordering, or that it is read-only; this adds almost nothing beyond what the name and schema already imply.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality. There is no unnecessary detail or redundancy.

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?

The tool has a nested filters object and pagination but no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the response contains or how filters and pagination interact. It is adequate for a simple list operation but leaves the agent without a full picture of the return value and usage nuances.

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 schema already fully documents page, per_page, and filters (including an example for Ransack-style filters), so the description's 'optional filtering and pagination' adds no new semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, the 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'approvals' and mentions key capabilities (filtering, pagination), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_approval (single) and create/update/delete. Even without explicit sibling mention, the action and resource are precise and unambiguous.

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 usage as a listing tool but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, such as using get_approval for a single record, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The mention of 'optional filtering and pagination' is only a hint, not a guideline.

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