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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: that a settled approval carries a signed_answer verifiable against /.well-known/wayza.json, and that wait holds the request up to 30 seconds. It still does not describe the unsettled/pending return state or error behavior.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action and id requirement come first, followed by the settlement/verification detail and the wait behavior. Some domain jargon (signed_answer, /.well-known/wayza.json) adds density but each clause earns its place.

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 carries the burden of return-value context and does explain the key settled-state artifact (signed_answer) and its verifiability. It is missing a sketch of the pending/unsettled response, but is otherwise adequately complete for a single-item lookup with two parameters.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates the wait semantics ('up to 30 seconds, hold until it settles') with only marginal added value, and adds nothing for id beyond what the schema already says about the r:<home>:<id> format.

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 (check) and resource (one approval) and scopes it to a single item by id, which implicitly separates it from the plural list_approvals. It also frames the two ownership cases ('you asked for or were asked'). It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the contrast from the singular/id framing.

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?

Usage is implied by 'check one approval... by its id,' which signals a single-item lookup versus the list siblings, but no explicit when-to-use versus list_approvals/reply_approval is given. The wait parameter's purpose (hold until it settles) does convey a practical usage condition.

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