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

Read-only annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description adds real value beyond them: blocking semantics, the retry-on-pending pattern, an implicit cost note ('Free'), and the sense that a timeout is not a failure. It doesn't say what status values can be returned or what happens to the approval on timeout.

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?

Three short clauses, all front-loaded with the blocking behavior first, then the return contract, then the retry rule. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing the return and does so ('returns the current status'). It omits the set of possible status values and any note about whether a timed-out wait loses the approval, which is the only meaningful gap for a two-parameter blocking 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 description coverage is 100%, so timeout_s and approval_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the timeout concept ('or timeout_s passes') without adding format or edge-case meaning, 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 (block/wait) and the exact resource (the human's approval decision), and contrasts implicitly with the non-blocking siblings approval_status/approval_list. An agent can tell immediately this is the blocking variant.

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 clear operating context (block until decision or timeout) and an explicit retry rule ('if still pending, call again'). It does not name the non-blocking alternative (approval_status) or state when *not* to block, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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