agentsecure.get_approval_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: read-only semantics, the exact status vocabulary, that reason text is redacted to summary/hash, that unknown IDs error out, and critically that an approved record neither executes an action nor lifts policy restrictions. That last point preempts the most likely agent misinterpretation of an 'approved' status.

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 read-only scope and return shape are front-loaded, and all six sentences carry distinct information (return fields, redaction, errors, non-granting semantics, alternatives). It is slightly dense for a one-parameter read tool, but no sentence is 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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain return values and side-effect profile — it does both, including the enumerated status values and the caution that approval does not trigger execution. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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 100% and the single approval_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the constraint by noting that unknown IDs cause an error; it adds no format or syntax details beyond the schema's 'apr_...' guidance.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Read a previously created local approval without changing it') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (status, action/resource, required_approver, decision details). It explicitly separates itself from agentsecure.request_approval and agentsecure.get_policy_hint, so an agent can choose without opening any sibling 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 names the alternatives and the condition that selects them: request_approval to create a request, get_policy_hint to inspect policy. It also states clear exclusions ('neither requests nor grants approval') so an agent cannot mistake this for a mutation or a policy-evaluation tool.

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