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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by enumerating the possible outcomes (waiting, answered with answer and comment, expired, cancelled) and by noting the call is 'Free' — cost information not available in any structured field. It stops short of describing exactly what fields come back for each state.

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 filler, and the states are compactly enumerated. The opening is slightly indirect ('Where a question ... stands') rather than leading with the action, but the whole definition fits in one breath.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so at a high level via the four states. Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile and the accessibility of the single parameter, only minor gaps remain — e.g., what other fields accompany the answer.

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%, and the single required parameter request_id is never explained in the description — though the reference to 'a question you asked with notify_request_approval' implicitly tells the agent where the ID comes from. With only one parameter and that implicit sourcing, this is adequate but not compensating for the empty schema annotations.

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 (check status) and resource (an approval request), and explicitly ties the resource to the sibling that creates it: 'a question you asked with notify_request_approval'. An agent can distinguish this from notify_list_events or notify_request_approval without opening any schema.

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 context of use is clear: call this after issuing a request via notify_request_approval to see where it stands. It also hints that an event-based alternative exists ('the answer also comes as the event notify.answered'), but it does not explicitly say when to poll this tool versus subscribing to that event, nor does it exclude any cases.

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