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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent already knows this mutates state without being destructive or repeatable. The description adds one genuinely valuable behavioral fact not present in annotations: the 20000 ms window after start_complaint/start_support. But it does not say what happens if the window expires, whether a partial finish is possible, or what a failure looks like, which matters for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the action first and the timing constraint second. Nothing is redundant and there is no padding.

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 three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it completes, what precedes it, and the time limit. The main gap is the absence of any statement about the result or behavior on timeout, which an agent would want given that idempotentHint is false.

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 100%: session, action_id and answers are each documented, including the keying scheme and the one-word-or-number answer format. The description adds only the framing that answers correspond to a task set produced by start_complaint/start_support, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource combination: 'Complete a complaint or a support by answering its tasks.' That tells an agent exactly what the operation does and names the resources involved. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_cases or top_cases, but the object it acts on is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear sequencing rule pointing at sibling tools: call it straight after start_complaint or start_support. It also gives a hard timing constraint (20000 ms window), which is the main condition governing use. It stops short of saying what to do if the window is missed or whether a new session is required.

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