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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent, lowering the burden. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it produces educational content, tailors a suggested starting point conditionally, and explicitly disclaims legal advice. This is useful and non-contradictory.

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 description is compact and information-dense, front-loading the core purpose before enumerating specific return content. Every clause earns its place: lanes, dockets, decision factors, tailoring behavior, and the educational disclaimer. It is organized for quick parsing by an agent.

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 required parameters, a fully documented schema, and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary context for correct invocation. It explains what the tool returns, when it is appropriate, and the optional tailoring behavior. No critical operational gaps remain.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that wants_hearing and has_new_evidence influence a tailored suggested starting point, which goes beyond the raw schema field names. The third parameter, eligible_review_context_confirmed, is left to the schema, but the schema describes it thoroughly.

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 the specific verb 'Explain' with a precise resource: a veteran's options after a VA decision under the AMA. It lists the concrete content covered (three review lanes, three Board dockets, evidence rules, deadlines, best-fit guidance), which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like search_bva_decisions or get_claim_process.

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 description establishes clear context: this is for explaining appeal options after a VA decision under the AMA, and it explicitly notes the tool is educational only and not legal advice. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the listed siblings.

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