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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by disclosing what data is returned and that the tool is meant for polling over time, which goes beyond mere annotation coverage.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The main return behavior is front-loaded, and the polling tip is concise and useful.

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?

Without an output schema, the description gives a meaningful summary of the response contents and use context. It lacks explicit error/not-found behavior details, but the read-only annotations and simple parameter surface keep this from becoming a major omission.

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?

The schema documents context and provides format-only information for approvalRequestId, while this description gives only an indirect hint that the ID refers to an approval request. It doesn't explain how the ID is obtained or how to pass it correctly, so the parameter guidance is adequate but has a clear gap.

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?

Description clearly states that the tool returns a specific approval request including reviewers, decisions, and policy snapshot. It differentiates itself from siblings like approval.submit and general app get/list tools by naming the exact resource and its read-only polling role.

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?

The description gives clear guidance: poll this endpoint to determine whether a release has been approved. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the intended usage scenario is unmistakable.

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