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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation read-only, states that it writes, signs and executes nothing, and enumerates outcomes (OK, REFUSED, UNAVAILABLE) including the rule that errors and missing settings become UNAVAILABLE rather than fabricated data. It also warns that a mapping or readout is not a compliance finding. It stops short of describing pagination, size limits, or what 'the records you supply' look like.

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 opening sentence front-loads purpose and scope, followed by safety, preconditions, and outcome semantics in a logical order. There is minor redundancy between 'Read-only view' and 'writes, signs and executes nothing', but almost every sentence adds a constraint an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not document return values, yet it usefully summarizes the status vocabulary. The critical gap is the opaque nested request object: for a tool with a nested, undeclared payload and rich environmental prerequisites, the definition leaves the agent without enough to supply arguments 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter is a nested object with additionalProperties=true and no declared properties, so the schema tells the agent nothing. The description offers only indirect hints (cases, a control id, a version, and that tenant must not be passed as an argument) without describing the request object's shape or field names, leaving the caller unable to construct a valid call from the definition alone.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Acceptance-pack export for one or more cases') and adds scope detail: optional mapping to a named control id and version. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like gate_decision or inspect_oversight_case, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied by the preconditions (env vars must be set, API must be a version that serves this view, tenant comes from settings not arguments), which tells the agent when a call will fail. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance or statement of what situations call for an acceptance pack versus another evidence tool.

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