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

Adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: it returns a preview plus a five-minute confirmation token, and explicitly does not apply the change. The readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true annotations are consistent with this (no contradiction), but the description does not explain token expiry handling or failure modes.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the prerequisites and the no-side-effect guarantee. Every clause carries information.

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?

Covers purpose, prerequisites, return payload (preview + token) and the key safety fact (no change applied), which is sufficient for a single-parameter preview tool with no output schema. Minor gap: no explicit pointer to the tool that commits the decision.

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 carry the burden. It hints at 'notes' and mentions amount limits and authority, but the nested input wrapper, the approved/rejected enum values, and the uuid format of request_id are only discoverable from the schema. It adds partial meaning but not enough to compensate fully.

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 action ('Prepare an approved or rejected decision') on a specific resource ('exact approval request'), clearly framing it as a decision-preparation step. It does not name the sibling resolve_approval_request as the tool that actually applies the change, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Gives usable preconditions — confirmation, current named/delegated authority, amount limits, required notes — and signals the preview nature of the operation. It stops short of explicitly naming resolve_approval_request as the follow-up tool, leaving the agent to infer the workflow from the preview_ prefix.

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