dhp_approval_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the state machine (pending/approved/denied/expired) and the gating semantics of 'approved', but says nothing about whether this is a safe read, expiry timing, or whether polling is expected. Partial but meaningful coverage.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence with the core action front-loaded and the decisive status semantics at the end. 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description already previews the status set. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the approval_id's provenance is missing.

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 single required parameter 'approval_id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about the id's origin or format, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Check an approval's status') and enumerates the four possible outcomes. This clearly separates it from sibling writers like dhp_request_approval, dhp_approve and dhp_deny without needing 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?

The clause 'Only approved means the action may run' gives important post-check decision guidance, but the description never states when to poll this vs. an alternative like dhp_status, nor any precondition (e.g. that an approval_id must first come from dhp_request_approval). Usage is implied rather than specified.

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