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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the letter is a template the patient sends in their own name; it says nothing about the return format, whether outputs are generated on demand, or any failure modes (e.g. locked case).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The second sentence adds genuinely new context about the letter's nature rather than restating the name.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should at least sketch what comes back (letter text plus phone script, optionally a base64 PDF per the schema). Annotations cover safety, but the response shape and the locked-case failure mode remain unaddressed.

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?

With 7 parameters and only 57% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate and does not — it mentions no parameter at all. account_number and provider_address_lines are undocumented in both schema and description, so the agent is left guessing about a meaningful share of the input surface.

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 (get) and two concrete resources (the dispute letter and the phone script), plus a scoping condition ('for an unlocked case'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_case, so an agent still has to infer which tool surfaces which artifact.

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 phrase 'for an unlocked case' implicitly signals the unlock_case prerequisite, which is useful context. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. get_case) for retrieving case data without the generated documents.

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