approvals_get_pending_persistent_instructions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds an API version constraint and the approval filter, but does not mention read-only status, pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The 'get' verb hints at safety, but the description alone does not provide rich behavioral context.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds the permission filter and version note. No filler words or duplicated information.

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 no-parameter list tool, the description fully conveys what is returned and under what condition. It omits details like response format or pagination, but those are less critical when there is no output schema and the operation is a simple fetch.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no need for parameter-level detail. The description correctly focuses on the output scope rather than inputs.

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 a specific verb (Returns), a precise resource (Persistent Instructions pending approval), and the key qualifier 'that the calling user can approve.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like approvals_get_pending_scheduled_instructions and approvals_get_pending_instructions by specifying 'Persistent' and the user-approval filter.

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 the use case - retrieving pending persistent instructions the caller may approve - but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. An agent can infer the context from the wording and sibling tool names, but there is no direct routing guidance.

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