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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about what content the tool surfaces, but it does not describe any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, limits, or behavior when no case is provided. 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core behavior, and the second sentence gives both the usage trigger and the parameter origin. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the single optional parameter, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only notable gap is that it never states what happens when `case` is omitted, even though the schema marks it as nullable and not required.

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 must carry the parameter meaning. It does so by explaining that `case` is a case id from list_cases, which is meaningful and actionable. It could further clarify the null/optional behavior implied by the schema, but it compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('evidence topics covered for one case'), and the output concept ('suggested questions'). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like get_case_overview or search by naming the case-topic investigation angle.

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: 'when the user asks what the connector knows or what they should investigate.' It does not list exclusions or when a sibling would be better, but the trigger context is concrete and actionable.

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