arc72_get_approved

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only query, what the return value is, or any prerequisites (e.g., whether an approval must exist). The description is nearly silent on behavior.

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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It lacks explanatory value and is merely a bare function reference, which does not earn its place as a helpful description.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description does not explain return values, error conditions, or the distinction from related getters. For a 3-parameter tool operating on a non-trivial standard, this level of incompleteness is critically inadequate.

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 schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (appId, network, tokenId), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond repeating tokenId, failing to enhance the schema's coverage.

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 exact ARC-72 operation (getApproved) and its input parameter, which distinguishes it from sibling getters like owner_of or is_approved_for_all. However, it does not explicitly state that it returns the approved address for a token, nor what 'approved' means, leaving the purpose vague for an agent unfamiliar with the ARC-72 standard.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as arc72_owner_of or arc72_is_approved_for_all. The description is simply a label, providing no contextual usage information.

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