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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail by saying what information is returned: pending/approved/denied/revoked status, approval expiry, and decision-maker identity.

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?

It is a single tightly written sentence that front-loads the resource and lists the relevant returned fields. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 read-only status lookup, the description covers the key return semantics and status values, and annotations cover safety behavior. It could be more complete by explicitly tying the 'id' parameter to a proposal identifier or noting what happens when the proposal is not found.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter. Saying 'one proposal' implies that the id identifies a proposal, but it does not specify format, source, or failure behavior for an unknown id.

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 clearly states that this reads the state of one proposal and enumerates the possible statuses plus who decided. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list-oriented siblings like permissions_pending by specifying 'one proposal,' though it does not name an alternative 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?

Usage is implied: call this to inspect the status of a single proposal. There is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus permission_decide, permission_propose, permission_revoke, or permissions_pending, and no exclusions are stated.

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