Keystore approval status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful boundary that this tool cannot approve and that approval is owner-only and out-of-band. It also discloses the return payload (status + landed tx hashes), which annotations do not. It says nothing about polling semantics beyond what the schema's waitMs already states.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only constraint and the payload, then the capability limit. 'Read-only' partly duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, which is the only real waste in an otherwise tight definition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it says what state it targets, what it returns, and what it cannot do. Minor gaps remain around what status values are possible and what 'landed' means for hashes, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so approvalId's provenance and waitMs's long-poll behavior are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the `awaiting_approval` link for approvalId and adds nothing about waitMs, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (read status) and resource (a keystore approval), and specifies what comes back: status plus landed tx hashes. It ties the tool to the `awaiting_approval` state, which an agent can match against a prior tool result, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `dexe_tx_status`.

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 `awaiting_approval` reference implies this is called after receiving such a result, and the second sentence gives a hard exclusion plus the real alternative path ('only the owner can, on the page'). It stops short of naming a sibling tool for comparison, so an agent must infer when to prefer `dexe_tx_status` instead.

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