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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint – 'No storage keys' – and enumerates returned data, which helps the agent understand the response shape without an output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero waste: the verb and resource come first, followed by a compact field list and a security note. Every segment earns its place.

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?

Given a read-only tool with full annotation coverage, no output schema, and a single well-documented parameter, the description is complete. It lists the returned data fields and notes the exclusion of storage keys, which is exactly what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, and the single parameter caseId is documented in the schema as 'CaseSchema.id'. The description does not add any syntax or format details beyond the schema, but baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 'Read' and resource 'one case', then enumerates the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_package or read_listed_company by its case-centric scope, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 says what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools such as walk_credit_file or read_package. No prerequisites, when-not conditions, or alternative paths are mentioned.

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