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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement 'This does not mutate the case' is redundant. The description adds context about the returned content but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth requirements) beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and provides specific content details without extra fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description lists the key components of the workspace, which serves as an implicit return-value preview. It does not mention edge cases or pagination, but the tool's scope and safety profile are well covered.

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?

The schema has one parameter (case_id) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explicitly explain the parameter, but the name 'case_id' combined with 'Inspect a case workspace' makes its purpose inferable. This indirect clarification is enough for a baseline, but the description does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('case workspace'), and enumerates the components (facts, cited evidence, blockers, ownership, timeline). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_case or get_case_package by focusing on the workspace's internal contents.

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 implies usage when a user needs to inspect the case workspace, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_case or get_case_package. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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