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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful non-schema facts: no credential needed, free of cost, rule provenance, and an access restriction (only case agents can read passages). It does not explicitly state read-only semantics or what a denied access looks like, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with intent, followed by what is returned, then structured metadata (Credential/Cost/Source). No filler, though the first-person phrasing is a slightly wasteful opening versus a direct verb.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (grades, warnings, disputes) but never documents matterId, the only required input. Adequate but with a clear gap around the parameter that an agent must supply.

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?

The single parameter matterId has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds nothing about it — no format, source, or how to obtain a valid id. The schema alone must carry the parameter, and it does not, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource ('submitted sources' / tenders) and the data returned (grades, warnings, disputes), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like dispute_tender or admit_tender. The odd first-person framing ('I want to see...') is stylistic rather than confusing, but it slightly undercuts a crisp verb+resource statement.

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?

There is an implied context (reviewing sources for a case) and a permission note that only agents involved in the case can read the passages, but no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no sibling alternative is named. The agent must infer that this is the read-side counterpart to dispute_tender/admit_tender.

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