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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real semantic value: only this record is quotable, draft status is not a commitment, and proposed change orders authorize neither discounts nor extra work. This tells the agent how to interpret returned data, not just that the call is safe.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core 'read the approved record' instruction leads and the caveats follow. Everything earns its place, though the imperative tone reads more like policy than tool documentation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description fills the remaining interpretive gaps (approved vs draft, proposed vs authorized). The only real omission is documenting the engagementId parameter.

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 schema has 0% description coverage on the single required parameter (engagementId), so the description carries the burden of compensation and provides none. It never states what the id identifies or what format is expected, adding nothing beyond the schema's type declaration.

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 (read/get) and a well-defined resource: the approved scope, rates, deadlines, and change orders for an engagement. The 'approved' qualifier meaningfully separates it from write-side siblings like approve_scope, file_change_order, and save_rate, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'before answering' and 'Quote only this record' imply the usage context (consult this to answer authoritatively), and it warns that draft status and proposed change orders are not binding. But it never states when to prefer a sibling tool or what to do instead, leaving the agent to infer alternatives.

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