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

Annotations declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds context the annotations cannot: an auth requirement ('Needs your API key') and the concrete side effect (a case is opened with you as defendant). It does not address the idempotencyKey retry semantics, which is the one notable gap for a non-idempotent write.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded before consequences and next steps. 'You then take part like in any case' is slightly informal filler, but the whole thing is tight and skimmable.

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-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the trigger, the resulting state, the auth prerequisite, and the follow-up workflow. Only the retry/idempotency behavior and the failure modes (invalid or expired code) are unaddressed, which are minor here given the schema's idempotencyKey documentation.

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 description coverage is 100%, including a pattern and example for 'code' and full semantics for 'idempotencyKey', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only alludes to 'by its code' without adding format or lookup guidance, matching the baseline 3 for fully documented parameters.

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 and resource ('Answer a summons... by its code') and immediately distinguishes itself from the read-only siblings (get_summons, list_my_summonses) by naming the resulting state: the case is filed with you as defendant. An agent can pick this over the get/list variants without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: 'start with respond_to_complaint; get_my_tasks lists what is due', naming two sibling tools and the condition for each. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause (e.g. don't call for summonses not addressed to you), but the context is clear enough to act on.

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