app_requests_and_approvals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds that it's an aggregate (not a list) and that hosting/pagination parameters have no effect, which provides behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 informative but contains a long JSON snippet and spec link, making it a bit verbose. It could be more concise while retaining key details.

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?

No output schema, but the description provides the full output format (JSON structure) and a spec link. It covers filtering and ignored parameters but does not explain each output field's meaning.

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 coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are adequate. The description adds value by clarifying that addon and productId are alternative filters and that hosting/pagination are ignored, which provides meaning beyond schema alone.

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 states it's for Marketplace 'request app' / 'approve app' activity per month, benchmark-style aggregate, and explicitly says it's NOT a paginated list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like licenses_list or transactions_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?

The description advises filtering by addon or productId and notes that hosting/pagination are silently ignored. This gives clear context on how to use the tool, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons.

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