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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Nothing is persisted' and what the tool returns (eligibility, partner, pricing, contracts). This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentences, zero filler. The critical action ('Dry-run') leads, and the imperative instruction is direct. Every phrase adds value.

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 10-parameter tool, the description is compact but sufficient. It explains the output ('returns eligibility, pricing, contracts') and the no-persistence behavior, while the schema covers parameter details. It could mention parameter alternatives (claimLines vs. amountToRecover), but that's a minor 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Dry-run') and resource ('a collection case'), clearly stating what it returns (eligibility, assigned partner, pricing, contracts). It distinguishes from create_case by emphasizing 'BEFORE creating it' and 'Nothing is persisted.'

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?

It explicitly instructs 'ALWAYS call this before create_case' and tells the agent what to do with the results ('show the user the pricing and requirements'). This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly contrasts with the create flow.

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