get_approval_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description still adds real value by stating the tool can never grant approval and where approval actually comes from (operator locally / project write authorization). That prevents a common agent misuse. It stops short of mentioning pagination or result-count limits, though the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 core purpose and ordering come first, followed by the read-only constraint and the routing to a sibling. Two dense sentences with no filler; the clause about where approval comes from earns its place by closing an exploitable ambiguity.

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-parameter read-only lookup with full schema descriptions and an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing: purpose, ordering, safety boundary, and the sibling alternative are all covered.

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%, so both project_id and task_id are already documented in the schema with cross-references to list_projects and get_task_status. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read the plan-approval records of a task') plus the ordering ('newest first'), and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling get_task_status. An agent can distinguish it from the other 40+ tools 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 a concrete triggering scenario ('before an implementation role writes files') and names the alternative for the adjacent need ('for the task's overall state use get_task_status'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are present.

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