request_approval

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses critical behaviors: exact amount capping, per-asset and total allowance limits, and the revocation effect of 0. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 well-structured with clear sections and a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, though a slight trimming (e.g., 'the vector behind most token drains') could improve conciseness. Overall efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral constraints comprehensively. However, it omits what the function returns (e.g., approval ID or status), which is a minor gap for full contextual completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: explains spender as 0x address, amount in whole units with 0 revocation, asset as token symbol with ETH exclusion, and reason for audit logging. This adds essential meaning beyond schema.

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 tool's purpose: granting a token allowance so a contract can later pull funds. It uses specific verbs ('grant', 'allowance') and distinguishes from sibling tools like request_payment by focusing on future contract pulls.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it is for exact amount allowances only, never unlimited; 0 revokes; and it mentions policy involvement (allowed/blocked/human approval). It implies not to use for direct payments, leaving that to siblings.

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