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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains what information is returned (status, outcome, reason) and implies a read-only status lookup. It could be more explicit about side effects or authorization requirements, but the stated outcome set gives agents a solid model of tool behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately explains what the tool does and the possible results; the second sentence gives the precise call timing. Every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter status-checking tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the request ID is, when to call it, and what statuses to expect. It could be more specific about the exact return structure, but the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter requestId with 100% coverage, including the fact that it is the ID returned by the staging tool. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating that idea, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (a staged workspace change) and the action (checking its status), and it enumerates the possible statuses: pending, approved, declined, expired, or failed. This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from workspace mutation tools like invite_member or create_access_role.

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 description gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call it after the user says they have dealt with the approval link.' This provides clear timing guidance. It does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool performs this status-checking function, so the guidance is sufficient.

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