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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent but thin. The description adds the return domain (go/stop/wait), the timeout behavior ('No decision in 10 minutes = stop'), the must_abort guard, and the polling loop via get_approval — real operational context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded headline, then dense imperative rules in short sentences; the negative scope (does not send/post/write) is placed after the core contract. No sentence is filler.

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 gate tool with no output schema and fully documented params, the description covers trigger, return values, timeout, abort signal, polling recovery, and explicit exclusions. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing, though must_abort is referenced without being defined as a response field.

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 100%, so action_type, preview, summary, risk, and target are already documented, and the description only echoes the action_type value list. No additional formatting, size, or validation semantics are supplied, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and gating resource ('Action Gate Ask', called before a consequential non-money action) and draws the boundary against money actions (check_transfer) and enforcement tools (email.send, slack.post, crm.write). An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit trigger ('MUST be called before a consequential non-money action when the agent still executes after go'), explicit alternatives for the adjacent cases ('To enforce those, call email.send, slack.post, or crm.write'), and the follow-up path for a wait decision (poll get_approval).

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