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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral fact — only 'published public' cases are reachable, implying drafts/private cases yield no result — but says nothing about the not-found response or permission model.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but arguably over-trimmed, since the space saved came at the cost of the language parameter.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the agent still lacks the language semantics and any indication of the returned shape or missing-id behavior. Adequate to call it, incomplete to call it well.

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 parameter meaning and it only covers 'id'. The 'language' parameter (enum zh-CN/en, default zh-CN) is never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess that it controls the returned case study's locale.

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 ('Get one ... case study') and distinguishes itself from list-style siblings via 'one ... by id'. The qualifiers 'published public' narrow the scope usefully, though it never names list_cases as the lookup path.

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?

'By id' implies the caller must already have an identifier, which hints that list_cases is the discovery step, but this is left to inference. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and nothing about what happens for unpublished or invalid ids.

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