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 delivers the key behavior: the status value set (pending, approved, denied, expired) and the decision rule 'Only approved authorizes the action.' That is genuinely useful semantics not present in the schema. It stops short of stating whether the call is side-effect-free or requires permissions.

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 core action, followed by the status set and the one rule that actually changes agent behavior. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return values (the statuses) and the interpretation rule, which is what the missing output schema would otherwise need to convey. Only the safety/permission profile is left unstated, which is minor here.

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 single id parameter is documented there as the value returned by request_approval. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Check the current status of an approval request'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like wait_for_approval (blocking) or list_pending (bulk), though the point-in-time framing implicitly separates it.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'check the current status' suggests a non-blocking poll, but the description never states when to prefer this over wait_for_approval or list_pending, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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