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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond this by disclosing the exact return payload (title, summary, transcript_excerpt, episode_date, duration_sec, agency, audio_url, source_doc_url, up to 5 related cases) and explicitly stating 'Public — no auth required,' which is not fully covered by the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. It efficiently conveys return fields, usage context, and authentication status without redundant wording.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the return fields, explains the intended workflow (after search_declassified), and states auth requirements. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'slug', with the schema describing it as 'Case slug as returned by `search_declassified`.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full record for a Declassified case by slug'), and it lists the distinct return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_declassified (which returns search results) and get_audio_url (which likely returns only the audio URL).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after `search_declassified` when the agent needs the full case body to summarize, narrate, or hand off audio playback.' This gives clear context and sequencing. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative (e.g., get_audio_url for audio-only needs), so it lacks an explicit exclusionary guideline.

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