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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the real side effect — case creation — plus a concrete rate limit (max 3 cases/day per agent), key-dependent enrichment from the caller's own orders and claims, the not_opened outcome for tests, and an explicit disclaimer about what the tool will never promise. This is exactly the mutation and quota context an agent needs.

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 the core purpose and every clause carries real information — outcomes, rate limit, exclusions. It is information-dense but the long run-on sentences with interleaved field names ('answered: false, case_id; without a key also a case_token') make parsing harder than it needs to be, costing a point.

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 and no annotation detail, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so: answered/case_id/case_token/case_status/not_opened are all explained, along with auth effects and quotas. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents product, question and on_behalf; the description adds no format or syntactic detail for them. Baseline 3 applies: the description clarifies the conceptual role of API keys in shaping answers but does not extend any individual parameter's meaning.

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 ('Answers a question about AgentDrives') and even enumerates the covered scope (prices, plans, levels, method, orders, API, MCP), so an agent can judge in-scope questions. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings that touch the same territory, such as my_orders or case_status, which it only mentions as a return field.

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 implied by the topic scope, and the description explains the answered/not-answered branching plus the test/placeholder carve-out. But it never says when to prefer this over alternatives, e.g. checking an existing case via case_status or pulling orders via my_orders instead of asking here.

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