get_approval

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so "changes nothing; safe to call again" largely restates them; but the description adds genuinely new behavior by enumerating the possible status outcomes and explaining that approval yields a string that must accompany the subsequent action. It omits any note on timeout/latency behavior beyond the schema's wait_seconds.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return-value semantics, then the safety note. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value meaning, and it does so fully by enumerating every status and the required follow-up action. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100%: the id is already documented as coming from request_approval and wait_seconds already carries its 0-120/default-60 range, so the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Wait for the person's decision on a request") and ties the tool to its producer by noting the id comes from request_approval, which cleanly separates it from siblings like request_approval and cancel_approval. An agent can identify the polling role of this tool without inspecting the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit decision tree: on "pending" call again, on "approved" proceed with the returned approval string, and on "denied, cancelled or expired" do not act. That is precise when-to-call-again and when-to-stop guidance, the exact condition set an agent needs for a blocking/polling tool.

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