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

Goes well past the annotations: it clarifies that the suggestion does not change the live flag, that a proposal equal to the live flag is not recorded, what is returned (current flag and what was recorded), and exactly what is or is not logged (case id, flag, reason, authority, date; no session, user, query or document data). That data-retention and no-op disclosure is precisely the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose and trigger lead, and the dense constraint sentences each carry weight. Minor bloat remains in the closing promotional sentence about helping syfert.com improve its flags, which adds no invocation guidance.

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 write-ish, 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers identity paths, allowed values, reason format and length limits, return contents, and the no-op/equality edge case. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: identity may be supplied either by cluster_id or by citation with an optional case_name cross-check, and it restates the red/green enum restriction in plain language. The authority field's role (the case or statute the reason relies on) is also framed functionally.

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 (propose/suggest) and resource (a red/green treatment flag correction) with the exact evidence trigger for it. It is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like get_treatment, check_citation and get_citing_cases.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions (an overruling, abrogating or reinstating opinion, or a later holding that the case is still good law) plus hard exclusions (only red or green, never yellow; the reason must concern legal status only, never the user's facts, question, client or document). Nothing about selecting this tool is left to inference.

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