list_approvals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so the description adds value by explaining role-based visibility and the fact that approve/reject actions are not performed here. This boundary clarifies an important behavioral trait 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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core function, then adds relevant access-control nuance and a key boundary, all in economical prose.

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?

Combined with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the key behavioral context: role scoping and the fact that decisions happen elsewhere. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it, though it doesn't mention response shape or pagination, which are minor given there is no output schema and the tool is simple.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters limit and status are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic nuance about parameter usage, which is acceptable at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Lista pendências de aprovação HITL do tenant') with a clear resource (approval pending items for tool actions). It further clarifies scope by role (admin/owner vs editor), making it distinct from policy-related siblings like list_approval_policies.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool: to list HITL approval pendings. It explicitly excludes decision-making ('decisão acontece no chat do aprovador, não por esta API') and describes role-based visibility. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it in favor of other tools.

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