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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: only published cases are returned, each includes what was done and reported results, and results must be quoted as the company states them. It does not cover pagination or exact return structure, but the safety profile is already handled.

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 compact and front-loads the main resource. Each sentence contributes: one describes the data returned, the next describes filtering, and the final gives a quoting constraint. It could be slightly tighter, but there is no significant waste.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key content, filtering behavior, and an attribution constraint. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe pagination or the exact shape of returned records.

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%, so the query parameter is already documented. The description confirms the filter is optional and lists client, sector, or service as acceptable word types, but adds little beyond the schema wording.

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 clearly states the resource: published client cases and success stories, including what was done, reported results, and the publication page. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_brand_profile or get_services, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It implies usage for retrieving case studies and notes an optional keyword filter for client, sector, or service. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as answer_question or search_offers, nor any exclusions.

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