get_approval_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the check reflects a human decision, the result set is a fixed four-state enum, and the intended use is polling — valuable since there is no output schema. It omits polling interval or rate-limit guidance.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the core purpose and the enumerated outcomes front-loaded before the polling instruction.

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 purpose, return states, and the triggering predecessor — essentially everything needed to call it. Only polling cadence and a pointer to list_pending_approvals are missing.

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 approvalId is already documented as coming from submit_for_approval, so the description adds no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 whether a human has decided on a submitted approval") and enumerates the possible outcome values (pending / approved / rejected / changes_requested), which lets an agent distinguish it from submit_for_approval and list_pending_approvals without opening a 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?

"Poll this after submit_for_approval" gives explicit sequencing guidance and names the predecessor tool. It stops short of saying when to stop polling or how it differs from list_pending_approvals, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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