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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and it delivers: it discloses the push-notification side effect on the user's device, the required human approval step, session expiry in minutes, and single-use consumption. This is all context the annotations do not provide, and nothing in the description contradicts 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?

A single dense paragraph of roughly 60 words with the core purpose front-loaded before the workflow, lifecycle constraints, and sibling routing. Every clause earns its place — purpose, gated-tool examples, step sequence, expiry, and single-use — with no filler or restatement of the title.

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 need no explanation, and the description covers the what, when, and full follow-up workflow plus expiry and single-use semantics. Minor gaps remain: no polling cadence, no failure-handling guidance for user denial or mid-flow expiry, and 'minutes' is imprecise; but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 17% (one of six parameters documented, and that one only as 'UUID value wrapper'), the description must compensate, and it does for two of six: 'create the session with the exact action_type and payload the tool documents' tells agents that actionType and actionPayload are not free-form but must mirror the gated tool's documented values. originLocation, originPlatform, actionDescription, and originTrustedDeviceId remain unexplained, with only a loose hint that the intended device is 'trusted.'

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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'Opens a sensitive-action approval on the user's own trusted device' — and explains the delivery mechanism (a push notification asking them to approve on their phone). It also differentiates itself from its only sibling, approval_session_get_approval_session_status, which the description explicitly names as the subsequent polling step.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use before tools that demand an approval') and names concrete gated tools: the domain auth-code reveal, the trademark firm handoff, and the ITIN submit. It then gives the full orchestration sequence — create the session, tell the user to check their phone, poll get-approval-session-status until APPROVED, pass the session id to the gated tool — leaving no ambiguity about the workflow.

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