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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by saying the case must be 'published' and that the result includes 'typed public facts,' but it does not disclose behavior for missing IDs, response shape, or any limitations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the key scope detail ('published') efficiently.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with strong annotations, the description is mostly sufficient for invoking the tool. However, with no output schema, the meaning of 'typed public facts' is left vague, and there is no hint about using search_cases to discover a caseId.

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 zero description coverage and only one parameter, caseId, so the description should compensate. It implies that caseId identifies a published case, but it does not explain the ID format, how to obtain it, or how 'typed public facts' relates to the parameter. The parameter name is self-explanatory enough to make this minimally adequate.

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 ('Retrieve') and names the resource ('one published case' plus 'its typed public facts'), making the tool's basic function clear. 'One' implicitly distinguishes it from search_cases, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many other get_* sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like search_cases or get_public_evidence. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a known caseId, or any exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the parameter and title.

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