recommend_approval

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the critical non-mutating fact ('Does not approve anything') plus that reasons are returned. It stops short of saying whether anything is persisted, whether a recommendation is required before approval, or whether it needs specific 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the safety-relevant clause ('Does not approve anything') is placed immediately after the capability statement where it will be read.

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 one-parameter advisory tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the possible outcomes, and the returned reasons. Only the relationship to the downstream approval flow is left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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 bill_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, sourcing, or semantics beyond 'for a bill'.

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 (recommend), the decision space (approve or hold), the resource (a bill), and the return content (with the reasons). That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_bill or match_invoice, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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: 'Does not approve anything' hints that a separate tool (e.g. request_payment_release) performs the actual approval, but the description never states when to call this versus those alternatives or what precondition a bill must meet.

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