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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new traits: the returned texts are Markdown, the content includes named sections, and the identifier must originate from search_cases. It doesn't discuss rate limits or errors, but for a read-only lookup that is minor.

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; the payload and return content come first, the identifier requirement second. No filler, no restating of the title.

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?

With only one parameter, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: where the id comes from and what the response body will contain. Nothing material is missing for calling this 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%, so the single idOrSlug parameter is already fully documented. The description restates the same fact ('Pass the id, slug or url returned by search_cases') without adding format details or edge-case behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 ('Get') and resource ('full content of one case study') and enumerates the sections returned (article text, challenge, solution, conclusion). This clearly separates it from search_cases, which returns a result list rather than a single document.

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 second sentence routes the agent through search_cases first ('Pass the id, slug or url returned by search_cases'), which gives a clear usage context and implies the retrieval workflow. There is no explicit exclusion statement, but the sibling relationship is unmistakable.

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