check_approval

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adequately discloses the tool is a read operation that returns status and details, but doesn't explicitly state idempotency or safety. Still, the behavior is transparent enough for this simple query.

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?

Concise three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns, including specific fields like timestamps and deny reason.

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 covers the single parameter request_id with a description. The tool description also mentions it, reinforcing the meaning. No additional semantics needed beyond what's in the 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 checks approval status, specifies the returned information (status, timestamps, resolution method, deny reason), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like request_approval and wait_for_approval.

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?

Explicitly advises to use after request_approval to check human response. Provides clear timing context, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use (e.g., if waiting is desired).

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