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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context beyond the structured fields: the list is restricted to unfinished applications (not submitted/exported ones) and includes per-form completion counts, which tells the agent what a resumed session looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying the return content first and the usage condition second in a parenthetical. No filler, no restatement of the title beyond what adds scope 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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description supplies what the structured fields do not: the draft-only scope and the resume use case. Return-shape details are legitimately omitted since the output schema covers them; only minor things like ordering or result limits are unaddressed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and schema description coverage is 100%.

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 (返す/returns) plus a precise resource scope: in-progress application cases (作成中の申請案件) and per-form filled-field counts. That scope distinguishes it from siblings such as start_application, fill_form, export_application and validate_application without the agent needing to open 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?

The parenthetical explicitly names the triggering situation: resuming a previous session (前回の続きから再開するときに使う). This gives clear when-to-use context, though it names no alternative tool and states no when-not-to-use condition.

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