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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add what they don't. It does add real value: output is conditional on the case being unlocked, so detail is withheld until then. It does not cover error behavior for a nonexistent or locked case.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the conditional-output caveat second. Minor deduction for the vague referent "the same free summary," which costs a moment of parsing.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and mostly does so, distinguishing the free summary from gated detailed findings. It is slightly incomplete on what a locked case returns (summary only, or an error/prompt to unlock).

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 is fully described, including the `case_` prefix origin from check_medical_bill. The description repeats the id-based lookup without adding format or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

"Retrieve a case by id" names a specific verb and resource, and the second sentence clarifies what the call yields (summary plus detailed findings). It does not explicitly name the sibling it is contrasted with — "the same free summary" leaves the comparand implicit — so differentiation from get_case_outputs / check_medical_bill is only partial.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or named alternative. The gating clause "once the case has been unlocked" implies unlock_case should precede deep reading, but the agent must infer that ordering rather than being told it.

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