draft_second_appeal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds a nuanced legal disclaimer (not legal advice / consult an advocate) and states the return envelope, but is thin on behavioral depth beyond that.

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?

Well front-loaded, with the purpose sentence first, then trigger, args, returns, and notes. The Args section partly duplicates the schema, but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return payload needn't be explained, and the description correctly keeps that brief. It is complete enough to call the tool correctly, with only minor gaps (e.g., specificity expected from the grounds list) remaining.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The Args block merely restates them without adding format (e.g., what a valid ref looks like) or richer meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Generate a draft Second Appeal to the Information Commission") and positions it distinctly against the draft_first_appeal / draft_rti_application siblings via the escalation trigger. An agent can tell immediately which tool produces this artifact.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger condition: use when the First Appellate Authority fails to respond or gives an unsatisfactory decision. It doesn't name the alternative tool (draft_first_appeal) to route away from, but the condition is clear enough to select correctly.

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