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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the crucial runtime traits: it blocks ~50 seconds per call, returns on approve/deny/open-changes, and repeats until timeout. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and the call-immediately instruction are front-loaded, and every clause carries actionable information. The long run-on sentence with several parentheticals could be split, but nothing is filler.

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 still explains the response ('returns as soon as they approve, deny or open changes, and says what to do next') plus the timeout loop, so an agent knows both the return behavior and the calling pattern. Complete for this polling tool.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema, including the enum for setup. The description maps parameters to workflow moments (link type) but adds little syntactic or format detail beyond what the schema states.

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 ('wait') and resource (user decision/approval), and enumerates the triggers (approval_id, plan_id, server, setup) that make it distinct from any sibling. It is clear what the tool does, though the opening sentence leads with motivation rather than the operation itself.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it (immediately after giving the user a link, in the same turn), what to do on a not-yet-decided response (call again), and when to stop (~10 minutes, then ask the user). No alternatives or conditions are left to inference.

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