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

The description discloses the effect of approval: 'Approval upgrades Ampel to GREEN.' However, it does not disclose what happens when rejecting, nor any auth requirements, reversibility, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and is only partially transparent.

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, two sentences, and gets straight to the point. No wasted words are present.

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?

The description provides the core purpose and an effect, but lacks details on rejection behavior, required inputs (e.g., resolution_id for the operation), and the response format. Given no output schema and no annotations, it is only minimally complete.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Approve or reject a bridge resolution.' The additional effect 'Approval upgrades Ampel to GREEN' reinforces the specific purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like bridge_resolve and bridge_status.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is used after a bridge resolution has been created, but it does not specify when to choose this over bridge_status or other workflow tools.

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