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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context — one graph per case, GRAPH.RO_QUERY execution, and the state vocabularies (active/needs_verification/superseded) and confidence variants that shape results. It stops short of noting limits like pagination or truncation behavior.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs the return contents densely; every listed element is informative rather than filler. Slightly long, but the enumeration is warranted given there is no output schema.

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, enumerating header, claims, evidence, actions and SAR status is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results, and the graph-engine note explains the data model. The only gap is the unexplained max_evidence cap, which affects how complete results will be.

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 the burden. It compensates well for case_id by giving the literal format ('C-44c08392'), but says nothing about max_evidence (default 40) or what it limits, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 ('Everything about one case from its own case graph') and enumerates the exact scope of the payload, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_cases (one case vs many). An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the 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?

The description implies use when you already have a case_id but never states when to prefer this over list_cases, explain_claim, or run_readonly_cypher, nor any preconditions for obtaining the id. No when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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