get_action_approval

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

With no annotations present, the description takes on the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only and has no side effects on proofs or payments, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether invocation is safe. It does not detail authorization requirements or possible returned statuses, but the core side-effect guarantee is clear.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the safety-relevant negation is placed second to reinforce the read-only nature. Every word contributes value.

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 read-only tool, this is largely complete: it identifies what the approval is, where its ID comes from, and that no proof or payment is initiated. It does not describe output fields, but no output schema exists and the tool's role as a status poller is adequately communicated through the sibling context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that approval_id comes from generate_proof or prepare_inputs, but that same provenance detail also appears in the schema property description. No additional parameter semantics beyond the structured schema are provided.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Read the status of a human wallet approval created by this MCP client.' This clearly separates it from sibling proof/payment tools, and the second sentence reinforces that it is not a proof-starting or payment-triggering operation.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: after an approval has been created by this MCP client, to read its status. It also states a key exclusion ('never starts a proof or payment'), although it does not explicitly name alternative tools or define exact polling conditions.

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