approval_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add real value by enumerating the state machine outcomes (pending, approved, rejected, expired, executed, failed), which implicitly tells the agent that pending is non-terminal and the others are terminal. It does not state that the operation is a read-only lookup, whether the result can change on re-poll, or what happens for an unknown or expired approval_id.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the value list. Every word earns its place; nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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, and the presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, so the short description is close to sufficient. It still leaves the agent without a source for approval_id and without confirmation that this is a non-mutating lookup.

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 single parameter approval_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it — not its format, nor where the agent obtains it (e.g. from a prior submit response). With low schema coverage the description was expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 names the resource and the exact information returned ('state of a queued approval') and enumerates the possible values, so an agent can tell this is a status lookup rather than a mutation like submit_order or cancel_order. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g. 'returns'/'checks') and never mentions the sibling order_status, so differentiation is implied by the resource name 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this after submitting an approval, to poll while status is pending, or when to prefer order_status or get_quote instead. The only usage hint is implicit in the word 'queued'.

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