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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by explaining that approved fields can be narrower than requested and that a row filter may restrict access, which is non-obvious and valuable for interpreting the result.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured. The first sentence gives the core result and valid statuses; the second adds important caveats without unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 simple read-only status tool with this two required parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. The statuses and response-relevant nuance of narrower fields and row filters are covered, and the absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit field descriptions.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the semantic meaning of grantId. The grantId parameter is only invoked as a UUID pattern with no description tying it to the data access request, and the description never clarifies if that ID originates from request_access or somewhere else.

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 clearly states the action (returns the status) and the resource (a data access request), and enumerates all possible status values. It adds distinctive detail about approved fields and row filters, which helps separate this status tool from siblings like approval.get or request_access.

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 usage context is implied: this is for checking the status of a data access request. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use it over sibling tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or next-step alternatives such as request_access or approval.submit.

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