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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed read, so the description correctly spends its words on data-interpretation caveats: permit links are site/time matches, not proof of issuance, with link_method and confidence describing the match. The warnings that a case does not guarantee construction and that coverage varies add real decision-relevant context beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing response shape or what happens when a case is not found.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the two caveats an agent most needs before trusting the linked permit data. 'Coverage varies' is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is redundant.

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 should convey return shape; it names the linked fields (decisions, permits, link_method, confidence) but not their structure or what an empty or unmatched case looks like. Adequate for a single-lookup tool, but the interpretive caveats are more complete than the return-value picture.

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%, so the description carries some burden; it does say the lookup is by UUID, which aligns with the format constraint in the schema. It adds nothing about the 500-character limit, error behavior for unknown IDs, or what happens with a malformed UUID, so it only partially compensates.

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 a planning case by UUID') and names what is bundled in the response ('linked decisions and permits'). It is distinguishable from the search_ family by the UUID lookup framing, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 UUID lookup implies single-record retrieval, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_pipeline_cases or search_pipeline_decisions, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The remaining sentences describe how to interpret permit links rather than when to call the tool.

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