check_approval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares that authorizesExecution is always false and enumerates the effectiveStatus values (approved_unconsumed, approved_expired, consumed, revoked), which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs to avoid treating a check as a clearance. It omits any note on side effects or permissions, though for a pure read that is minor.

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 the core purpose and the safety-critical constraint front-loaded and no wasted words. Every clause (informational-only, status fields, consume_approval handoff) earns its place.

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 exists, so the description must explain return values, and it does name the two fields that matter most (authorizesExecution and effectiveStatus). It does not sketch the remaining status values or response shape, leaving a small gap for a tool whose entire output is status data.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already documents id as "the request id returned by request_approval". The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Check the current status of an approval request") and explicitly separates itself from consume_approval, the sibling that actually authorizes execution. An agent can tell exactly which tool performs a status read versus an authorization.

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 an explicit when-not ("no status here authorizes execution") plus the correct alternative ("Only consume_approval ok:true authorizes"). It does not route against the other read-oriented siblings (list_pending, wait_for_approval), so it falls just short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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