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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP method. It does not disclose any additional traits like authentication needs, error handling, or rate limits.

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 extremely concise (one phrase), but it sacrifices informativeness. While it front-loads the HTTP method and path, it could include a brief sentence on what the tool returns or how to use it.

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, so the description should explain the return value. It doesn't. Given the tool has nested input objects and multiple parameters, the description is incomplete for an AI agent to confidently invoke it.

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 50% (2 of 4 params have descriptions). The tool description provides no parameter information, failing to compensate for the schema gaps. The 'query' and 'workspace_id' params have descriptions in schema, but 'id' and 'brand_id' lack context.

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 'GET /approvals/{id}' conveys it retrieves an approval by ID, but it's minimal and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'aidelly_get_approvals' (list) or 'aidelly_list_pending_approvals'. The tool name already makes the purpose clear, so the description adds little, but it's not misleading.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to get a single approval vs listing approvals). Context signals show many related tools, but the description offers no decision support.

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