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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The added sentence 'Completion is not approval' is genuinely non-obvious workflow semantics that goes beyond the annotations, but it is cryptic and omits what gets destroyed, whether the call is asynchronous, and what permissions are required.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the dual purpose is stated first. It would score higher if it used its available space to resolve the ambiguity of the second sentence rather than leaving it as a fragment.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, open-world tool with five parameters, 60% schema coverage and no output schema, the description says nothing about the response, async behavior, retry semantics (beyond the schema's idempotency_key hint), or what happens after a request is 'completed'. It is materially under-specified for this complexity.

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 60%; the case/company/environment/idempotency_key descriptions carry some of the load, and the description does signal that the 'request' parameter has two shapes (investigate vs revise-with-feedback). That mapping adds modest meaning, but the description still leaves the actual mode fields to 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?

The description states a specific verb (ask/investigate) plus resource (the case) and names a second mode (revise a saved plan). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like summer_investigations_list, though it never distinguishes itself from adjacent action tools such as summer_verification_run or summer_actions_prepare.

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 two modes ('investigate' vs 'revise a saved plan') are enumerated, which mirrors the schema's oneOf rather than giving real guidance. There is no statement of when to pick this tool over summer_verification_run, summer_actions_prepare, or summer_investigations_list, and no prerequisites are given.

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