Show approval request status

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and non-destructive, but the description adds a genuinely new trait: the observation does not consume the request, so repeated calls are safe and the request remains actionable. It stops short of describing auth requirements or any rate limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key non-consuming constraint. Every word earns its place with no boilerplate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is structurally simple with one parameter. The remaining gap is the provenance of request_id, which an agent needs in order to call this successfully.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds nothing about request_id — not its format, nor where the agent obtains it (presumably from a prior approval-required response). The single required parameter carries no semantics in either location.

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?

Specific verb (observe) plus resource (approval request) in a single clause. It is distinguishable from the mutation siblings like filesystem.write_file_approved by emphasizing observation, though it does not name toolhub.audit_recent as an alternative for historical inspection.

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 phrasing 'without approving, rejecting, or consuming it' implies the use case (safely polling an in-flight approval) but never states when to reach for this versus the *_approved tools or audit_recent. Usage is inferable rather than explicit, and no exclusions are given.

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