check_approval_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It only states 'Check the status', which implies a read-only operation but doesn't explicitly confirm no side effects, nor does it describe what happens for invalid IDs, whether the status is blocking, or what fields are returned. The absence of output schema makes this gap significant.

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 sentence of 8 words, extremely concise and free of redundancy. It gets straight to the point with no 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. However, the description does not explain the return format, possible statuses, or behavior on errors. While low complexity reduces the need for extensive detail, the lack of any response information leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 already provides a description for the single parameter, approvalRequestId, with a pointer to request_agent_transaction. The tool description adds no further detail about parameters, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a pending agent transaction approval'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling status tools like get_deposit_status or get_kyc_status. It states exactly what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used after requesting a transaction or before executing it, nor does it rule out other status checks. Only the input schema hints at its place in the workflow via the parameter description referencing request_agent_transaction, but the description itself lacks usage context.

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