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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds behavioral value beyond them: it discloses the return shape (each check's result with a failure reason, plus whether all passed) with no output schema present, and states the auth requirement (sign-in or API key). It does not cover edge behavior such as how many checks run or how large failure sets are returned.

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?

Four compact sentences with labeled slots (Input, Do not use, Next) and zero filler; the trigger condition is front-loaded and the alternatives trail it. Every clause carries routing or behavioral information.

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 one-parameter read-only validation tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the input, the return semantics, the safety profile, the auth requirement, and the follow-up path. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents the case_... id format and its origin tools. The description's 'Input: the case `id`' adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — runs the submission checks on a draft case — and explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming evictions_submit_case as the tool NOT to use. An agent can distinguish this from submit/update without opening schemas.

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 an explicit trigger ('when a draft looks complete, before asking the person to confirm'), an explicit exclusion ('Do not use this to submit'), and names the follow-up routing (update_case to fill a gap, then submit_case). Nothing is left to inference.

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