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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the response deliberately omits the expected answer, and input should be treated as untrusted document data. It stops short of describing return shape or failure behavior.

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 compact sentences with the retrieval behavior front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence about untrusted input is slightly ambiguous as stated, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is close to adequate, but it leaves the required id undocumented and gives no sense of what a returned 'case' contains beyond the reference date.

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% and the description never mentions the single required 'id' parameter, its format, or where to obtain valid ids. With one undocumented parameter, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Get one synthetic case and its reference date') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('without its expected answer') that distinguishes it from the scoring siblings. The singular 'one case' implicitly separates it from list_order_cases, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The agent is not told when to prefer this over get_order_eval_contract, list_order_cases, or the scoring tools, nor what the case is intended to be used for. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the 'without its expected answer' clause.

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