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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds real behavioral context: the required Bearer vak_ auth scheme, ownership scoping, and the security-relevant 'returns not found for any case the key owner does not own — no cross-user access'. That is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 scope, safety, auth and ownership constraints are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the parameter detail confined to a short Args block. No sentence is filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers ownership, auth and the 'never starts an analysis' guarantee. It does not sketch the shape of the returned 'per-stage' summary, which is the only remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it identifies case_id as 'one of the veteran's own cases' and points to list_my_va_cases as the source. It omits the id's format, but provenance is the more useful detail here.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get a per-stage analysis SUMMARY') scoped explicitly to 'the veteran's OWN cases', and the parenthetical 'never starts an analysis' distinguishes it from the sibling run_my_case_analysis. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-not ('never starts an analysis') and tells the agent where case_id comes from ('from list_my_va_cases'). It stops short of naming run_my_case_analysis as the alternative to use when an analysis must be kicked off, so the exclusion is implied rather than explicit.

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