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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents and the intended user role (arbitrator). The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds context beyond the schema by listing specific data fields.

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 concise sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then lists return items, and ends with usage context. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains return values (job info, messages, evidence, amounts, deadline). It also provides context on when to use (before submitting a verdict). It is nearly complete, though it does not mention error conditions or explicit read-only guarantees, which are less critical for this tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; the meaning of 'job_id' and 'agent_key' is fully described in the schema.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full case details for an escrow dispute', listing concrete return items (job info, messages, evidence, amounts, deadline). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_messages or get_job_status, which focus on other aspects.

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?

It explicitly states 'Used by arbitrators to review a case before submitting a verdict', providing clear context for when to use. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended workflow is well implied.

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