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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — the access restriction, the 48-hour receipt retention window, and the mechanics of 'queued' (imports within a minute of opening the workspace). It stops short of describing pagination or what happens when more than the schema's 100-key cap is supplied.

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?

Every clause carries information, but it is delivered as one dense run-on with the access restriction front-loaded ahead of the tool's actual purpose. The embedded URL is also corrupted ('thecompdesk.com/workspace'), which weakens an otherwise useful piece of 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does — all four statuses plus 'with the figures the workspace computed' and error codes for rejected. Auth, retention, and input format are covered, leaving only edge cases like the 100-key cap and behavior on unknown keys 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description carries the full burden and does: it specifies the exact key format 'WCB number:hearing date' with a concrete example, and defines the default behavior when no keys are passed. 'Recent' is left slightly vague, but the 48-hour retention statement effectively bounds 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 names the resource (the attorney's imported cases) and enumerates the four return states with a definition for each — queued, imported, needs_review, rejected — so an agent knows exactly what it will receive. It does not differentiate against siblings, but no sibling overlaps this reporting function, so the omission is minor rather than confusing.

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 states the prerequisite ('Signed-in Pro or Firm attorneys only') and gives the two calling modes: pass explicit keys, or pass nothing for every recent import. That is clear context for choosing inputs, though it never states when this tool is preferred over, or must be preceded by, other workflow steps such as add_workspace_cases.

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