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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral context beyond them. It discloses that the tool returns a private bearer review link and warns not to share it autonomously or treat presence of a link as client approval, which is valuable safety information for an agent.

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 description is two tightly written sentences with no wasted language. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical manual-sharing and no-inference warning.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with complete schema descriptions and full safety annotations, the description supplies the missing behavioral and return-value context. It identifies what is returned, the permission scope, and the key restriction on using the returned link, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 both required parameters, workspaceId and postGroupId, are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax, constraints, or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific read operation: retrieving a post's current client review details and notification status, with the added return of a private bearer review link. This clearly distinguishes it from approval-mutating siblings such as company_request_post_approval, company_cancel_post_approval, and company_retry_approval_notification.

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?

It gives clear usage context: this is a read-only manager-permission operation, and the returned link is for manual sharing only. It explicitly says not to autonomously send the link or infer client approval, which is a strong when-not guideline. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for requesting, canceling, resending, or retrying approvals.

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