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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation). It discloses the return value (approve_url), that the human signs with their wallet at no cost and with no transaction, the authorization boundary (only the named wallet decides; the API key can only cancel), and the auth prerequisite (organization API key).

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, followed by the next-step routing and the authorization/auth constraints. No sentence is 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 nine-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what the agent gets back (approve_url), how to proceed (approval_wait or channel watch), who can decide, and the auth requirement. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters including approver_wallet and mandate_id. The description reinforces the authorization model ('only the named wallet can decide') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (ask/request) and resource (human approval of an action), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling approval_wait by naming it as the follow-up step. An agent can tell this is the initiation tool rather than the polling or cancel tool.

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?

Routes the agent forward: 'Your agent then calls approval_wait, or watches your live channel for approval.approved.' It also clarifies who may act (only the named wallet decides; your API key can only cancel). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this versus approval_policy_set, but the workflow context is strong.

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