List pending tool action requests

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board'), providing useful behavioral context beyond the 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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence contributes value, but it could be more structured (e.g., adding a sentence about usage context without becoming verbose). Score 4 because it is efficient but minimal.

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 that there is an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., list of action requests, pagination details). It lacks completeness for a tool with parameters and output, leaving the agent without full context.

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 description has 0% schema coverage, meaning it explains none of the parameters. The only parameter (companyId inside path) is not described, leaving the agent to infer from its name alone. This is insufficient for a required 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 description states 'List pending tool action requests', which is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pending tool action requests'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that create or manage action requests (e.g., pc_post_companies_by_company_id_tools_action_requests_aa728686a4).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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