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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not readOnly, not destructive, not idempotent), and the description adds two facts not derivable from them: the call does not charge credits and returns 'done'. It omits error behavior and what happens if materials are re-added, so it is good but not complete.

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 English sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the entire content is then repeated verbatim in Chinese, doubling token cost without adding information for a single-language reader. Nothing else is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema-description coverage, key details are missing: request_id semantics, error/failure behavior, and whether added materials take effect immediately. It does cover the return value ('done'), credit behavior, and the case-state prerequisite.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains materials (text vs document_id variants) and the 2000-character note limit, but leaves request_id's purpose (request tracking/idempotency?) entirely unexplained and gives no insight into the document_id format.

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 (add material to a compliance case), names the material kinds (text or completed documents) and the eligible case states (accepted or in-progress). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling add_order_pack_material, but the compliance_case_id scoping makes the target resource unambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition: the compliance_case_id must be accepted or in-progress, which tells the agent when the tool can be called at all. It offers no explicit exclusions or alternative routing (e.g. request_compliance_check for new cases), so it stops short of 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.