tf_check_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions polling and returning a token once approved, but does not state whether the call is read-only, what happens when approval is still pending, whether it blocks or returns immediately, or if repeated calls are safe. This leaves significant ambiguity for a tool that lacks any annotation context.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, and the token return is stated clearly. It is concise and structured effectively, though it could be slightly more specific about the pending state.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose and result. However, it omits details about the response when approval is not yet granted, and without an output schema, the description should clarify the return structure. It doesn't mention whether the call blocks or is a non-blocking poll. These gaps make it only partially complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 has one required parameter (approvalId) with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions this parameter or how it relates to the pending approval. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not confirm that approvalId is the identifier of the approval being polled, nor does it clarify the expected format beyond the schema's uuid type. This is a gap since the description should tie the parameter to the tool's purpose.

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 the action (polls), the target (status of a pending approval), and the outcome (returns a signed approvalToken). The verb and resource are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like tf_request_approval, which presumably creates the approval. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the function is unambiguous.

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 the tool is for polling a pending approval, which suggests using it after an approval request has been made. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., tf_request_approval) or provide exclusions. The usage context is implied by the phrase 'Polls the status of a pending approval' but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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