list_approval_policies

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful domain context about how policies are referenced, but it does not disclose runtime behaviors such as pagination, ordering, or whether the default output includes inactive policies (the schema's 'active_only' param implies this but is not in the description).

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?

Two short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core operation and scope, and the second provides valuable referential context. The description is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 very simple tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete: it covers the resource, tenant scope, and semantic context. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the clarity of 'políticas de aprovação do tenant (quem aprova o quê)' makes its function clear enough to call correctly.

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 single parameter 'active_only' is fully described in the input schema (description: 'true = apenas políticas ativas') with a default value, so the description does not need to add param-specific meaning. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond what the schema already states, warranting the baseline 3.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Lista'), resource ('políticas de aprovação do tenant'), and scope ('do tenant'), and adds a parenthetical definition ('quem aprova o quê') that disambiguates the resource type. The additional note about CSP references via behavior.approval_policy_id further clarifies the role of these policies, distinguishing it from list_approvals, which presumably lists approval records.

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 when to use the tool (to list tenant-level policy definitions) and even hints at its downstream use by CSPs, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no routing guidance against siblings like get_approval_policy or list_approvals, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name and resource phrasing.

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