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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: a live case with an engaged attorney goes on hold rather than being withdrawn immediately, a live key acts on a real case, and account auth (sign-in or API key) is required. It doesn't address re-invocation or reversibility of the withdrawal itself, which the annotations only hint at via destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the triggering condition, then inputs, then the hold/withdraw nuance, then the exclusion and the return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restated boilerplate.

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, and the description compensates by describing the return value (the case, with state and nextAction indicating who it is waiting on). Auth requirements, the sibling to use instead, and the confirmation precondition are all covered for a destructive, open-world mutation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning by tying confirmedByPerson to the 'confirm with the person first' sequence rather than just restating the field name. It does not add format detail for id, which the schema already covers.

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+resource ('withdraw a case and stop it') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the read/update siblings by naming evictions_send_case_message as the wrong tool for messages. An agent can route to this tool 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('person has decided to withdraw a case'), explicit when-not ('Do not use this to report that the tenant has paid or to ask a question'), and names the alternative tool for that excluded case. It even specifies the precondition of confirming with the person before passing confirmedByPerson.

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