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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the four status values that can come back, that replies are returned oldest first, and how to interpret a reply that isn't the approval word (change request or question). It doesn't say what happens for an unknown or foreign approval_id.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the outcome (status + replies) before the qualifiers, with no filler. The clause 'read from where Rithmo asked them' is slightly opaque but earns its place by signalling the source of the replies.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to sketch the return payload (status plus ordered replies) and the meaning of non-approval replies. It leaves gaps on error behavior for unknown approvals, on whether a still-pending approval returns empty replies, and on the two undocumented parameters.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not. approval_id is only obliquely implied by 'an approval you asked for', and agent_key is never mentioned at all, leaving an agent to guess how each field is formed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('read' the 'status of an approval you asked for') and enumerates the possible statuses (pending, approved, superseded, used), which lets an agent tell it apart from write-side siblings like request_approval and approve_from_chat. It stops short of naming how it differs from adjacent readers such as get_hold_status or list_decision_changes.

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?

'An approval you asked for' implies the tool is used after request_approval and is scoped to the caller's own approvals, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of polling versus one-shot reads, and no reference to the other approval-related siblings.

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