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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: 'Nothing is charged at this step' clarifies billing behavior, and it discloses the artifacts returned (case_id, access_token) needed for subsequent calls. It stops short of warning that repeated calls create duplicate cases.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the creation action and its outputs are front-loaded and the billing reassurance follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the questions, case_id, and access_token. It could go one step further and name answer_questions as the next call, but it is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 each of the five parameters is documented, including the enum for 'state'. The description adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Creates a Claim Done case for a document') and names what is produced (questions, case_id, access_token). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_document or answer_questions, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'the later steps' and the returned access_token signals this is the entry point of a multi-step flow. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no pointer to the prerequisite siblings (list_services / match_problem) that produce the required 'service' slug, even though the schema hints at it.

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