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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that with an explicit exclusion list (email addresses, message content, provider IDs, payment records) and the 'bounded' qualifier on invoice summaries, telling the agent what it will not get back.

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, zero filler: the first front-loads what is returned, the second states the privacy boundary. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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 description need not explain return shape, and it still summarizes payload sections plus the exclusion boundary. For a two-parameter read tool with full annotation and schema coverage this is nearly complete; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, including the 'never infer a different client workspace' warning. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 ('Return one case') plus the resource and scope ('from the signed-in SHVL workspace'), and enumerates the payload contents (status, payment-readiness state, invoice summaries, communication evidence). This clearly separates it from sibling list/search tools like search_credit_control_cases.

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 singular 'one case' plus the required case_id imply retrieval-by-identifier rather than search, but the description never explicitly says when to use this instead of search_credit_control_cases or get_credit_control_brief. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated in the description text (the workspace_id schema hint carries the selection constraint).

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