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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by stating it will not execute or retry the write and that no raw inputs or approval secrets are returned — an important data-exposure disclosure not captured by any annotation.

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: the action and its non-executing nature come first, then the parameter provenance, then the disclosure about return contents. No padding.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly sufficient, but it only says what is not returned. It never indicates what a status result looks like (e.g., pending/approved/denied states) or whether the agent should poll, which matters for a status-checking tool.

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% (only a uuid pattern), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the provenance of admissionId (from a confirmationToken or execute_write result), which is the one thing an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Check your credential-bound write admission', with the qualifier 'without executing or retrying it'. It is clearly a read-only status tool, distinct from the mass of get_* listing siblings, though the unusual term 'write admission' assumes the agent already knows the execute_write flow.

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?

Tells the agent exactly where to source the required input ('the admission UUID from a confirmationToken or execute_write result') and implicitly frames usage as post-write polling. It does not name any alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to act on.

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