wait_for_approval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses blocking behavior, the three termination conditions (decision, expiry, timeout), the return value, and the critical interpretation rule that a pending timeout is NOT approval. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate or polling cost caveats.

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, no waste, and the blocking behavior is front-loaded followed immediately by the safety-critical timeout rule. Every sentence 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the interaction contract, and it covers the blocking lifecycle, the return content, and the timeout interpretation. It leaves a small gap around what 'expires' means versus a timeout and offers no comparison to the other approval siblings.

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%, so id, poll_seconds, and timeout_seconds are already fully documented in the schema, including defaults and bounds. The description adds only the interpretation of the timeout outcome, which is useful behavior-level context rather than additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 behavior: 'Block until a human decides the request, it expires, or the timeout elapses.' The blocking semantics inherently distinguish it from the non-blocking check_approval/list_pending siblings, but it never names an alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It gives clear operational context for handling outcomes ('A timeout returns status pending: treat it as NOT approved'), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting a timeout as consent. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over check_approval or poll-based siblings.

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