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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's extra value is that it returns a concise, reviewed orientation and is not the tool for exhaustive detail. That clarifies scope and avoids over-reliance on it for follow-up questions. No contradiction with 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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the usage guidance follows naturally, and the parameter explanation is compact. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage timing, workflow sequencing, and parameter provenance. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

Though the schema has no description for `case`, the description supplies the essential meaning: it is a case id obtained from list_cases. Since this is the only parameter, the description covers the critical semantic gap, though it does not clarify the meaning of the default/null or optionality.

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 verb ('Return'), the resource ('a concise, reviewed orientation to one case'), and specific contents (evidence classifications, page citations). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing the output as an orientation rather than detailed results, so an agent can tell it apart from search and fetch.

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 says when to use it ('Use for first-time users') and describes the sequence: 'then search and fetch before answering detailed questions.' It also tells the agent where the `case` parameter comes from ('a case id from list_cases'), giving clear routing guidance relative to siblings.

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