check_approval

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the state machine (pending/approved/denied/expired) plus the follow-up call required on approval. It omits whether the call is a safe read, any auth/permission requirement, and polling or expiry timing.

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 with zero filler; the lifecycle constraint and the returned states are front-loaded, and the follow-up instruction is last where it belongs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must (and does) enumerate the return states and explain the resulting action per state. Combined with the one documented parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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% for the single approval_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces where the id comes from ('call pay_x402 again with approval_id'), but adds no format or validation detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource (check the status of a payment approval) and explains the exact origin of that resource: an approval created when pay_x402 exceeded the hosted-wallet cap. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pay_x402, approve_token, and list_payments.

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 the operative context (only relevant after pay_x402 hit the cap) and an explicit next action: re-call pay_x402 with approval_id once approved. It stops short of saying whether the agent should poll, how long to wait, or what to do on denial/expiry.

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