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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new context: the call is free (relevant for a paid-API ecosystem), approved results carry a signed proof, and it is served by approve.moneytools.dev, signalling a remote network dependency. It does not disclose polling cadence, expiry semantics, 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the outcome list (approved/denied/expired) comes first. The trailing host annotation is compact but the '(free)' parenthetical sits awkwardly mid-sentence.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does reasonably well by sketching the possible return outcomes and the signed proof. However, with zero schema coverage it should have identified the parameters and clarified the request-to-status relationship, which it leaves entirely to inference.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never explains what 'id' identifies (presumably the approval request) or what 'agentToken' is or where it comes from. Both required parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 concrete verb and resource: check whether a human approved, denied, or let the request expire. That is specific enough to separate it from siblings like approval_verify or approval_cancel, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is a polling call after approval_request, but the description never says when to call it versus approval_verify (proof checking), approval_consume, or approval_cancel. No prerequisites (such as needing the agentToken from the original request) are stated.

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