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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful content context by saying the response shows 'what the plan destroys and how it was answered', but it does not cover auth/permission requirements or whether the answer data can be incomplete or pending.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return-content detail appended. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 one required parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description's hint about return content ('what the plan destroys and how it was answered') covers the main unknown. It is nearly complete for a simple lookup, missing only permission/error context.

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?

There is a single 'id' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics; per the baseline rule this is a 3. The description adds no format, source, or retrieval hint (e.g., where the id comes from) beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('one approval'), and the phrase 'one approval' implicitly separates it from the sibling org_approval_ls. It does not explicitly name the list sibling, but an agent can still tell the singular-fetch role from the surrounding tool names.

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: fetching a single approval by id versus listing approvals. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing from the 'one' qualifier.

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