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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and requirements. It mentions the 4-eyes principle and the status change, but lacks details on failure conditions (e.g., if report is not draft), permissions needed, or whether the action is reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences that directly convey the core action and state change. There is no redundant or filler text; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should cover prerequisites, return values, and potential errors. It only provides the action and status transition, leaving the agent to guess about permissions, side effects, and what a successful approval returns. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with three required parameters.

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 three required parameters (report_id, entity_id, approved_by) but the description provides zero explanation of their meaning. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by defining any parameter roles or formats, leaving ambiguous fields like entity_id.

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 verb 'Approve', the resource 'draft report', and the process '4-eyes'. It also defines the state transition 'draft → approved', making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_report or annual_report.

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 state transition 'draft → approved' implies the tool is used when a report is in draft status, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer alternatives. No sibling tool is mentioned, so the context is implied rather than explicit.

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