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

The description says the tool 'opens a work record', which is a state-creating claim, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (no environment modification). The description also does not reconcile this with the idempotentHint=true annotation. Since the description asserts a write-shaped side effect that the annotations deny, this is an annotation contradiction.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the return value, with the parenthetical '(step 1, define the task)' earning its place by fixing the tool's position in the workflow. No 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does ('the clarifying questions the framework needs answered', minus supplied answers). It omits whether a record identifier is returned for later use by record_answers/work_record, which an agent orchestrating the workflow would want, but the core call path is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics: `answers` is not just data, it subtracts from the question set that is returned, implying partial-answer calls are valid. `request` and `agent` are covered by the schema alone.

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 ('opens a work record for one legal task') plus the concrete return ('the clarifying questions the framework needs answered'), and anchors it as 'step 1, define the task'. An agent can place it in the workflow relative to siblings like record_answers and work_record without opening any 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?

The 'step 1, define the task' framing tells the agent when in the framework lifecycle to call this, and 'less any already answered in `answers`' signals the follow-on workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly (e.g. when to skip straight to record_answers), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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