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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, it discloses the safe scope (approval_requests_read) and OAuth grant requirement, the non-resubmitting behavior, and a full status taxonomy including the tricky needs_reconcile and approved_retryable retry semantics. Annotation-consistent (read-only) with genuinely useful added context.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by tight bullets mapping each action and status. Some redundancy with annotations ('READ-ONLY') and dense status prose, but no wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing return fields per action and interpreting each status value. Only the wait_seconds polling behavior is left to the schema, leaving a small gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it enumerates the fields returned by each action (request_id, action_type, status, approval_url, executed_order_id) and the zero-PII economic summary for get. wait_seconds' wait-while-pending behavior is only in the schema, a minor omission.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read the status of YOUR OWN approval requests') and scopes it to the caller's own data. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling write paths (quote/draft/submit) that would otherwise look similar.

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 states when to use this tool ('Status reads go here') and when not to, naming the alternatives ('re-running quote/draft/submit only returns the same request'). It also routes by action, explaining list vs get.

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