approval.get

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature of the tool. The description adds 'durable' as a behavioral nuance, suggesting the request is a persisted object, but it does not explain failure modes, response shape, or any other runtime behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and 'durable' adds a useful connotation of persistence without bloating the text.

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 get-by-IDs tool with readOnlyHint, the description is minimally adequate, but it is not complete: there is no output schema, no description of what the returned approval request contains, and no guidance on when this tool is the right choice among siblings. The ambiguity of 'Task' further reduces completeness.

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 needed to compensate, but it only restates the parameter names via 'Task' and 'approval_id'. It does not explain what values are expected, how they relate, or what 'durable approval request' means, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the schema field names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('approval request') along with the required identifiers, making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like approval.respond or audit.get, and 'Task' is slightly ambiguous versus the parameter name task_id.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as approval.respond or audit.get. The only implied usage is that it retrieves an approval request by IDs, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are provided.

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