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 transparency. It discloses that the tool pauses the workflow, returns 'approved/denied + reasoning,' and mentions optional on-chain enforcement. This gives a clear behavioral contract without requiring the agent to infer side effects.

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 two sentences that front-load the purpose and usage scenarios, then add return behavior and enforcement details. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool with 4 parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description adequately covers when to use it, what it returns, and optional enforcement features. It does not need to explain return structure in detail because the output schema exists, and the schema covers timeout behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context (e.g., examples of high-stakes actions and the return format) but does not provide detailed semantics for individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Pause your workflow for explicit human approval before executing a high-stakes action.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_a_human by focusing on approval for irreversible actions.

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 explicit guidance on when to call the tool: 'Call before any irreversible action — large spend, on-chain transaction, public content publish, customer-facing decision.' While it does not list exclusions or name alternatives, the context makes it clear this is for high-stakes approval scenarios.

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