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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: an auth requirement (sign-in or API key), and the fact that the attorney field only appears 'for a live case'. That conditional disclosure is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then exclusions, then return shape and auth. Each sentence carries routing or behavioral weight, though the return-shape sentence ('facts, deadlines, documents...') is dense enough to be slightly list-like.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does: facts, deadlines, documents, attorney, plus `state` and `nextAction`. Combined with the auth note and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this 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%, so the schema already documents the single `id` parameter including its pattern and provenance. The description's 'Input: the case `id`' restates rather than extends this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('get one case in full') and immediately scopes it ('where it stands and what it is waiting on'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two closest siblings, evictions_list_cases (finding) and evictions_get_case_events (history).

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('when you need one case in full') plus two explicit when-not-to-use cases, each paired with the correct alternative tool by name. Nothing is left to inference.

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