Check Approval Status

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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already establish the safety and side-effect profile, and the description's 'poll' language aligns with that. The description adds the possible status values but does not mention error behavior or response details, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 focused sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the possible status values.

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 status values are a useful inclusion, and the existence of an output schema means return values need not be spelled out. Given the simple one-parameter nature, the description is largely complete, though it could have briefly noted that approval_id identifies the specific approval being polled.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the approval_id parameter beyond its name. Since there is only one parameter and it is not described, the description adds no semantic value over the schema.

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 that the tool polls the status of an approval, and it specifies the three approval types (trade, trade-intent, execution-unlock). The status value list further clarifies the exact result set.

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 this is for checking approval status, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from related tools like get_trade_intent, request_trade_approval, or get_order_status. No condition is given for when to choose this tool over a sibling.

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