passgage_get_approval

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only safe operation, but the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or return format. For a tool in an authenticated API context, this lack of context is a notable gap.

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?

The description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and key details, with no unnecessary information. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID operation.

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 tool with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does. It doesn't explain return values, but that is not strictly necessary for a standard get operation, and the schema provides enough context for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema documents the single 'id' parameter with a clear description ('The UUID of the approval to retrieve'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a specific approval by ID' uses a clear verb and resource, and the scope 'specific' with 'by ID' distinguishes it from listing or creating approvals. This is an unambiguous, well-scoped purpose.

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?

The phrase 'specific approval by ID' clearly indicates when to use the tool (when you have a known approval ID), distinguishing it from list_approvals. However, it doesn't explicitly mention not to use it for bulk operations or name the list alternative, so it doesn't fully meet the bar for explicit alternatives.

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