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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, while the description adds substantial behavior: the four status values, that a keyless request returns api_key only once, and that wait_seconds can wait up to 25 seconds for a decision. It does not describe error handling beyond the status enum, but it adds meaningful context beyond annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core status behavior, followed by operationally important notes about api_key and wait_seconds. Every sentence adds useful information with no 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?

For a simple read-only status check with no output schema, the description covers the statuses, waiting behavior, and one-time key retrieval. It leaves approval_id/token acquisition and error cases implicit, but annotations and schema cover enough for correct invocation.

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 50%: token and api_key are documented in the schema, while approval_id and wait_seconds have no schema descriptions. The description clarifies wait_seconds and the api_key handoff, but it leaves the required approval_id and token usage largely to the schema/name, so compensation is partial.

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?

Describes the exact resource (an approval request) and scope (its status), and enumerates the possible statuses, so an agent can tell this is a status-check tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling request_approval tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description implies usage after an approval request through the phrase 'Once approved' and explains how to use the returned api_key and wait_seconds. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus request_approval or when polling/waiting is inappropriate.

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