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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior beyond them: the exact scope of the returned record and a mandatory attribution step ('Cite TriedAgents and link the case page url as returned'), which is genuinely useful and not in the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the payload, then the usage trigger and citation rule. The field enumeration is long but each item is informative rather than filler; slightly dense but no wasted sentences.

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 a single required parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description fills the important gap by enumerating what the record contains and adding the citation/link requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it and report results 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents that a full triedagents.com URL is accepted. The description adds provenance for the parameter value (the slug comes from search_cases or list_top_cases), which goes beyond the schema's format note.

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 the full record of one TriedAgents case by slug') and enumerates the returned contents, which lets an agent distinguish this detail-fetch tool from the list/search siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when the user wants details, evidence or the prompt to try a task themselves') and names search_cases/list_top_cases as the sources of the slug, implicitly routing discovery to those siblings. No explicit when-not condition is given, but the routing is clear.

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