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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them: it explains the effect is a soft state change ('It stays in the record, marked withdrawn') and notes the API-key requirement, both of which matter for an agent deciding to call it.

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 core action, effect, and prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it covers the operation, its non-destructive outcome, and the auth requirement. Minor gaps remain (e.g., visibility of the withdrawn evidence to other parties, effect on case progression), but nothing critical to calling it is missing.

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%, so caseId, evidenceId, reason and idempotencyKey are all documented in the schema. The description only alludes to the 'reason' parameter and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (withdraw) and resource (evidence) with a meaningful scope constraint ('your side submitted'), which separates it from the other withdraw_* siblings (withdraw_case, withdraw_settlement_offer, withdraw_as_counsel). It does not name an alternative sibling, but the resource and ownership scope are unambiguous.

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 phrase 'your side submitted' implies the eligibility constraint (you may only withdraw your own side's evidence), which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as accepting the evidence instead.

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