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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: credential required (party), cost (decision cost plus 30% if heard), timing (other party answers within two hours, free withdrawal window, 48-hour variant under earlier Rule 6.0B), and that the Court hears the appeal of its own motion before three judges. It still omits failure modes and what happens to the matter if leave is refused.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose, which is good, but the bulk is a single run-on paragraph mixing procedure, timing and fee rules. Much of the procedural detail is useful, yet the density and lack of structure make it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers process, credential and cost reasonably well but leaves the input model (grounds, argument, authorities, disputes, defence) essentially unexplained. An agent knows the procedure but not how to construct the call.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It adds meaning only for feeAcceptedUpToCents (the withdrawal-period rule) and does not explain the required grounds, matterId, argument, defence or disputes, which are the parameters an agent must actually populate.

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 conveys a specific action and resource: obtaining permission (leave) for the High Court to review a point of law, with the grounds for that leave listed. It is clear enough to distinguish from a full 'appeal' or 'proceed_with_appeal', but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

It states the substantive conditions under which leave is granted (new legal issue, conflicting decisions, general importance, obvious error) and refers loosely to 'the same appeal process', implying a relationship to siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-versus-alternatives routing, so usage must be inferred.

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