gateway_approval_get

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

The description aligns with readOnlyHint=true by using 'Read', and adds useful context beyond annotations: results are limited to 'visible' approvals, event history is included, and approvals:read permission is required. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: 'Read', 'one', 'visible', 'event history', and the permission requirement.

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 simple read-one tool with readOnlyHint and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and permission. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling approval tools, but the singular 'one' combined with the tool name makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains include_events via 'event history' but does not explain approval_id or the default behavior of include_events. Since approval_id is self-evident from the schema and tool name, the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('one visible approval'), and a distinguishing scope ('and its event history'). This separates it from sibling tools like gateway_approval_list, gateway_approval_decide, and gateway_approval_comment.

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 clearly implies this is the singular read tool for a single approval and its history, and it states the required permission. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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