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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context about the state transition (reopening a closed case) and an important guarantee ('preserving prior rounds'). However, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, idempotency behavior, or what happens to the submitted evidence, leaving notable gaps.

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?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. The main action and state condition are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Despite having three required parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description offers only a high-level purpose sentence. An agent would not be able to correctly construct the evidence object or understand idempotency and versioning requirements. This is materially incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the three parameters. The words 'evidence' and 'rounds' provide only loose semantic context. The idempotencyKey, expectedVersion, and relationship between allegation and evidenceIds remain unexplained, which is insufficient for a nested-parameter tool.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('reopen') with a clear resource ('a closed evidence case') and adds a distinguishing condition ('with previously unconsidered evidence'). This clearly differentiates it from related siblings like open_evidence_case and close_case, even without naming them.

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 description communicates when to use the tool: when a case is closed and there is newly considered evidence, while preserving prior rounds. It provides clear contextual guidance but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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