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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks approval status and implies a read-only check, but it does not describe permissions, idempotency, error handling, rate limits, or the full set of possible statuses, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 compact sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the conditional usage rule, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 simple two-parameter check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and a usage condition. However, it does not describe the possible return statuses (e.g., pending) or what the response contains, leaving the agent to infer the full decision workflow.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented parameters. It names card_id and card_token and indicates they identify the approval card, but adds no format, source, or constraint details beyond restating the parameter names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking whether the user approved or rejected an approval card. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like approve_check_action or approve_get_rules, leaving some ambiguity about which approval tool to choose.

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?

It gives a clear usage directive: 'Only act when status is approved.' This tells the agent how to use the result, providing context without exclusions. However, it does not name alternative tools or explain when not to use this tool.

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