get_approval_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful semantics ('only a passkey approval the gateway verified counts as approved') and hints at return content, but says nothing about whether approval is asynchronous or must be polled, error/pending states, or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the required input provenance. The closing sentence about Intent Cloud and blocked items is slightly extraneous but still informative, so no significant waste.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It partially describes the result contents but omits the response shape, whether the call is idempotent/repeatable, and how to interpret non-approved outcomes – gaps for a verification-style tool.

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% and the schema itself already documents the single parameter, including its pattern and that create_cart returns it. The description's mention of the handle merely repeats the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (whether the person approved a purchase with their passkey), and ties itself to create_cart as the source of the handle, which separates it from the sibling create_cart/find_offers tools. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear sequencing context: use the approval_handle that create_cart returned, and relay the result to the user. It does not state when NOT to call it (e.g. before an approval exists) or name alternatives, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not/alternative bar.

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