ep_check_signoff

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a poll operation, returns three statuses (PENDING, APPROVED, DENIED with reason), and is safe to call repeatedly. No contradictions.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds essential information. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, returns, and safety. It could mention that the return format is not structured but the listed statuses suffice for an agent to act.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description explains the parameter 'receipt_id' by stating it is passed and explicitly ties it to the output of ep_guard_action, adding meaning beyond the schema's own description.

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's purpose: polling a pending authorization after a specific trigger (ep_guard_action returns BLOCKED). It identifies the specific resource (receipt_id) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ep_guard_action or ep_verify_receipt.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (after ep_guard_action returns BLOCKED) and that it is safe to call repeatedly. It implies the context but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though the sibling list makes it clear this is the only polling tool for signoff.

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