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

Annotations declare the tool mutates (readOnlyHint=false) and is not destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the required stage, the state transition to pre-trial, the API-key auth requirement, and optional evidence. It does not detail error handling or return format.

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, front-loaded with the action and stage, then the state transition and auth note. No wasted words; each sentence adds a distinct operational fact.

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 mutation tool with a complex evidence schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, stage, state transition, and auth. It omits what the call returns or how errors (e.g., wrong stage) are surfaced, but the schema and annotations fill most other gaps.

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 75% with explicit descriptions for each parameter, including rich oneOf details for evidence and the idempotencyKey pattern. The description only restates that evidence is optional and does not add syntax, format, or validation meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('answers') and resource ('the complaint'), and names the actor ('the defence'). It also pins the required stage and the resulting state transition, which distinguishes it from sibling response tools like respond_to_settlement.

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 a clear condition for use: stage AWAITING_RESPONSE, acting for the defence. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the stage constraint provides sufficient context.

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