get_approval_flow

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden: it declares 'Read-only' (safety profile) and enumerates the returned payload (flow type, approval_status, approver groups with approvers). It omits error/not-found behavior and any authorization requirements, but for a simple read this is solid 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and read-only flag, then discovery hints. No filler and nothing that restates the tool name.

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 two-required-param read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, safety, return shape, and the prerequisite lookup for both IDs. There is nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly that 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by supplying the lookup path for job_id (list_jobs → match by name), which the schema does not mention. It does not add integer/format constraints, so it lands just above baseline.

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 and resource ('Get a specific approval flow for a job') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling write tools (create_or_replace_approval_flow) with 'Read-only.' An agent can tell this is a single-item fetch rather than a listing or mutation without opening 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?

Gives concrete navigation for both identifiers: 'To find job_id: list_jobs → match by name' and 'For approval_flow_id: list_approvals_for_job.' That is strong routing to prerequisite calls, though it never states when NOT to use this tool or contrasts it against list_approvals_for_job/list_pending_approvals as alternatives.

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