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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: KEYLESS (no auth needed), the deliberate exclusion of ITC staff identity, and the absence of filed documents with a pointer to why (EDIS not served). That is real context beyond structured fields.

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 core purpose before the identifier caveat, then enumerates return contents and exclusions. Dense but each clause carries information; the parenthetical asides are slightly heavy but earn their place as error-prevention.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values — and it does, enumerating status, phase, category, docket number, every procedural date, and related/consolidated/severed counts, plus what is excluded. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by stressing the id is internal-numeric and must not be the human 337-TA number, which is the most likely invocation error. Minor edge above baseline.

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 ('Full status record for ONE USITC investigation') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling itc_investigation_search by naming the required identifier source. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the 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: use the internal investigation_id 'from itc_investigation_search — NOT the human "337-TA-1400" number'. This is clear context and a negative constraint. It stops short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use comparison against itc_investigation_types, so 4 rather than 5.

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