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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already communicates that this is a safe read, so the description adds essentially nothing beyond that. It does not cover what happens with an invalid or unknown id, whether permission scoping applies, or what the returned record looks like despite there being no output schema.

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 short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it wastes space.

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 lookup the description is nearly adequate, but with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the agent is left not knowing the id format or the response shape. A sentence on either would make this complete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter meaning, but it only says "by id." It gives no hint about the id's format (numeric, UUID, or prefixed like an approval token), which is the one detail an agent needs to supply the argument correctly.

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?

"Get one approval request by id" states a specific verb (get) and resource (approval request) with singular scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling approvalgate_list_requests, but the word "one" implies the difference.

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 phrase "by id" weakly implies the tool applies when a request id is already known, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the list sibling as the alternative, and no stated preconditions or error behavior for unknown ids.

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