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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds what they cannot: that the call has financial/operational consequences, that the first call with confirmed=false records NOTHING, that it fails for non-current approvers, and that the two-step pattern is required. That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three tight sentences ordered by importance: what it does, the safety obligation, then the failure mode and call sequence. Every clause carries operational weight; nothing is padding.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, preconditions, confirmation protocol, and the preview/commit mechanics. It stops short of saying what the preview payload contains or what state the request enters after approval, which would close the last gap.

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 100%, and the schema's own property descriptions already explain confirmed=false as a no-op preview and the ar_identifier formats. The description restates the two-step semantics without adding syntax or edge-case detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('record this user's approval') plus resource ('a request that is waiting on their decision') with a scope constraint that tells the agent when the action is even valid. It never names reject_request or describe_approval_request, so the sibling differentiation is left to the agent's inference rather than stated.

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 preconditions ('fails if the user is not the current approver'), an explicit confirmation protocol ('show the user what they are approving and get explicit confirmation in the same turn'), and an explicit two-call sequence with the default state spelled out for each call.

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