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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds real context beyond them: the full set of possible states, that an account admin in the Yellowhead app performs approval, and that only requests made through this connection are visible — a meaningful scoping limitation.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the purpose, the state list, and the visibility scoping each earn their place. The single long sentence is a bit run-on, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 usefully names the returned fields (state, request and decision times, reason). It could go further by noting what to do when a state is still pending_approval or applying, but it is otherwise sufficient for a one-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden. It explains where approval_id originates (the three sibling tools) and that it keys a held request, which the bare uuid-format schema does not convey; it doesn't describe format or error behavior for an unknown id.

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 and resource ('Returns the state of a held request by its approval_id') and enumerates the exact state values, which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_run_status or get_diagnostic.

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 routes the agent by naming the three sibling tools whose output yields an approval_id (update_action_item, add_action_item_comment, run_diagnostic), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating when to poll versus when to stop or what to do on terminal states, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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