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

Annotations establish it is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation; the description adds meaningful behavior: it indexes/extracts/spreads, supports image PDFs, is idempotent in returning an existing running job, and does not perform memo drafting or approval. It could say more about side effects on the case or job lifecycle, but the description carries substantial behavioral context.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by job semantics and exclusions. No wasted text.

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 job-starting tool with no output schema, the description explains the multi-step process, idempotent job behavior, and exclusions. It leaves some ambiguity about what is returned or how job status/progress is observed, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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% and there is only one required parameter (caseId), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States specific actions (index, extract, spread financials) on a specific resource (the open case's credit file/package). It also explicitly separates itself from sibling jobs like drafting the memo and approving a loan.

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?

Clear context: use on an open case to process a package, and it either starts or returns an already-running walk job. It names two exclusions (no memo drafting, no approval), but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like start_underwriting_package or read_package.

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