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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the OAuth and permission requirements, the difference between preview and actual queueing, the limitations (cannot approve/pick/buy), and even clarifies the semantic distinction 'A request is not a removal'.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads prerequisites, the second explains the preview-first workflow, and the third covers the confirmed action and limitations. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema submit tool with two modes, the description is remarkably complete: permissions, behavior, limitations, and semantic nuance are all covered. The only gap is the undefined subject_id, which prevents the agent from fully executing the tool correctly without guessing.

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?

The description explains confirm in rich detail (preview vs confirmed queueing), but says nothing about subject_id. The schema only gives length constraints, not meaning, so an agent has no idea what to pass for subject_id. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the missing parameter, but it entirely omits it.

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 states a specific action ('queues removal requests') and the exact resource ('listings the person already approved'), and explicitly contrasts its preview vs confirm modes. This distinguishes it clearly from the getter/search siblings (get_case_status, list_my_cases, etc.), which are all read-only information tools.

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 an explicit workflow: first use it without confirm:true to preview, show that list to the person, get a yes, then call with confirm:true. It also states when NOT to use it (it cannot approve, pick new sites, or buy anything) and routes the user to the website for approval/entitlement cases, effectively naming the alternative path.

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