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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what 'progress' contains, pagination, or the 404 case for an unknown versionId.

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 same URL string is duplicated back-to-back, which is pure waste rather than concision. The remaining clause about describe_operation is boilerplate appended after the redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain what the progress payload looks like, and it does not. Combined with 0% parameter coverage and a nested/free-form query object, an agent cannot confidently construct a call or interpret the response from this definition.

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% and the description says nothing about the two parameters. The required versionId and the free-form query object (which allows arbitrary additional properties) are completely unexplained, leaving an agent with no idea what query keys are valid.

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 is essentially the endpoint path repeated verbatim twice, which restates the tool name and title rather than explaining purpose. It does convey 'GET progress for a clause-approvals version' implicitly through the path segments, but gives no plain-language statement of what the returned progress represents or how it differs from the sibling get_clause_approvals_version_by_version_ae944e111692d3f11a94c0c4.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many other clause-approvals endpoints (rules, pending, conditional rules, or the differently-hashed version sibling). The only hint is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas,' which points to a helper for schema discovery, not a usage condition.

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