Payments parked awaiting a human approval

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, it discloses the lifecycle rule that entries expire into a denial, that an approval is a cryptographic signature by a registered approver, and that no callable endpoint can grant, deny or extend one. These are behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition followed by lifecycle and constraint, with zero redundant wording. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and a single annotation, the description supplies the domain model, the expiry behavior and the action limit. It does not describe the fields of an escalated payment entry, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists to cover it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty object at 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics requiring description. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing.

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 precise resource and scope: payments by this agent that policy escalated rather than allowed or denied. The escalated-pending-approval framing clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rein_receipts and rein_status without needing to open any 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?

The description establishes when this view applies (escalated, awaiting human signature) and implicitly rules out action by noting nothing callable here can grant, deny or extend an approval. It never names a sibling tool as an alternative, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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