Draft a complaint brief

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries real weight here and does add value: it discloses that the tool aggregates channel, timeline, references, promises, verified facts, and rules with sources plus tone rules. That aggregation semantics is non-obvious and not present in the annotations. It stops short of saying explicitly that nothing is persisted, which a reader might wonder about given the word 'draft' in the name.

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 sentences, densely packed with no filler, and the content summary comes first with the parameter default last. The opening sentence is a fragment that leans on the title to supply the verb, which slightly hurts readability but wastes no words.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, read-only, output schema present), and the annotations plus output schema cover safety and return shape, so the description is nearly sufficient. It is still incomplete on routing (which sibling to use when) and on what a valid `rung` looks like, which are the two things an agent would most likely get wrong.

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. It meaningfully clarifies `rung` — it defaults to the next escalation rung, which is not inferable from an untyped string/null field — but it never gives accepted values or format for rung, and `case_id` is left entirely to the name.

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 names a concrete artifact (“everything needed to write the next message on a case”) and enumerates its components, so an agent understands this assembles a briefing packet for the next case message. However, it is phrased as a noun list with no verb for the tool's own action (“draft” never appears), and it names no sibling, so the boundary with get_context, get_rules, or get_escalation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite several plausible overlaps (get_context, get_rules, get_escalation). The phrase “write the next message on a case” only implies the moment of use rather than stating it.

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