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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely new context by listing the terminal states (pending, authorized, vetoed, expired, executed) and that the approver identity is returned, which is the return-value behavior an agent needs. It also flags cost ('Free'), which annotations do not convey.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and status set, then adds the approver payload and cost note. No filler or repetition of the title.

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, and the description supplies the expected return content (status enum plus approver) for a simple read-only lookup with one documented parameter. Nothing an agent needs in order 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% with a single request_id parameter documented as a 'tpi_... ID', so the schema carries the semantics. The description only implies the input is one 'two-person request' without adding format or lookup detail, so 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?

Names a specific verb (status) and resource (two-person request), and enumerates the possible states, so an agent can tell it apart from fortress_tpi_list or fortress_tpi_execute. It never explicitly names those siblings or states that it operates on a single request_id, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named; the agent must infer from the name that this is the check-before-execute call. The only practical guidance offered is the cost note 'Free', which is useful but not usage routing.

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