Check a confirmation request

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

Adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: the server executes the original request itself after confirmation so it must not be resent, pending requests expire after 24 hours, and the full status lifecycle is listed. This is exactly the context an agent needs to avoid duplicate calls and know when to stop polling.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the return shape and followed by operational guidance. The second sentence is long and bundles several concerns, but every clause carries real information.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description covers the returned fields (status values, action summary, decision_via/decided_by/step_up, execution result), so an agent knows what to expect. Nothing needed for correct invocation is 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 the single 'id' parameter is already documented as coming from error.approval_id. The description only reiterates the apr_ prefix and that the request belongs to this connection, adding marginal value over the schema.

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 ('Returns one confirmation request ... by id (apr_...)') and enumerates the payload fields. No sibling tool does anything similar, so an agent can identify it immediately.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage: 'Applies after a tool answered approval_required, polling about every 15 seconds until the status is final.' It gives the triggering condition, the polling cadence, and the terminal state, leaving nothing to inference.

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