orbs_get_required_approvals

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds valuable context about what is checked (native asset wrapping and Permit2 approval) and when to use it (pre-signing), which goes beyond the structured 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and usage context. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (a read-only pre-check), the annotations, and the schema's full parameter descriptions, the description is largely complete. It clearly explains the objective and timing, though it could optionally hint at the return format (e.g., list of required approvals) to fully close the loop.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, though it does contextualize the mode parameter via the 'Permit2' and 'RePermit' hints.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('wrapping native assets or approving Permit2'), and a clear scope ('before signing an Orbs swap intent'). It distinguishes itself from sibling Orbs tools like orbs_get_quote or orbs_prepare_swap_intent by focusing on approval requirements.

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 implies when to use the tool ('before signing an Orbs swap intent'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving room for clearer guidance.

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