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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns a permission verdict and resolution level, and emphasizes it does not actually make the call, reinforcing the safe, idempotent nature. It does not contradict annotations and adds context beyond them.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the action and key feature (no call made), and the second describes the return value. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (only 1 required), no output schema, and high annotation coverage, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return (permission verdict and level), but does not mention potential error cases or the relationship to the sibling 'check_approval_status'. Still, it provides enough context for a read-only permission check tool.

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 input schema already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter details beyond stating the tool evaluates a given tool call. Baseline is 3, and the description provides no additional param-level insight, so score remains 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to check if a tool call would be allowed, require approval, or be blocked without executing it. It specifies the verb 'ask whether' and the resource 'tool call', and it differentiates from actual execution by noting no call is made. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_approval_status' which likely deal with existing approvals.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (before making a tool call) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. It implies using it as a precautionary step, but lacks comparison to sibling tools like 'check_approval_status' or 'list_pending_approvals'. This still offers good guidance.

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