List approvals in a company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class (board_or_agent), which provides some context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe pagination, rate limits, or error behaviors.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded, but the first sentence is redundant with the title. The second sentence adds some technical detail. It is concise but could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the complexity of the domain (many approval-related sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what approvals are, any filtering capabilities, or the output schema (though that exists separately). The agent lacks context to use this tool appropriately.

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 only parameter is path.companyId, which is a required string but lacks any description in either the schema or the tool description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no additional meaning to this parameter.

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 title and description both state 'List approvals in a company,' clearly indicating the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pc_get_approvals_by_id or pc_get_issues_by_id_approvals, which also list approval-related data.

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 provides the HTTP method and authorization class but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pc_get_approvals_by_id). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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