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

The description adds useful context beyond annotations: a specialist follows up by text or email and re-cleans are free. However, annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description does not explain what is destructive, whether case submission can be undone, or what happens after submission. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by eligibility, follow-up expectations, and input guidance. Every sentence adds actionable information without repetition or waste.

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 support-case creation tool with no output schema, the description covers who can submit, the authentication modes, the issue categories, follow-up behavior, and free re-cleans. The main remaining gap is guidance on preferredResolution and any explicit disclosure of the destructive/non-idempotent behavior already noted in annotations.

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 60%. The description usefully maps the issueType enum to natural-language scenarios and clarifies the email/account access condition. It also adds 'in the customer's words' guidance for the description field, but it never mentions the optional preferredResolution parameter, leaving part of the schema unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Open a support case for an order,' then immediately enumerates the supported problem categories. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like cancel_order, reschedule_order, and rate_order.

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 gives clear usage context by listing issue scenarios and explaining the two access modes: a connected Fold account or order code plus scheduling email. It does not explicitly name when to choose this tool over alternatives such as cancel_order or reschedule_order, but the context is strong enough for selection.

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