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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive open-world lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the source site (court.gov.cn), the output language (Chinese), and the specific content fields returned.

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 lists the returned content and source without waste. Every clause contributes either scope, return-field information, language, or source provenance.

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 one-parameter read-only detail tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the returned sections, language, source, and the sibling list that supplies the id. Nothing an agent needs in order to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema already says the id is 'Case id from cn_guiding_cases_list.' The description reinforces that link but adds no further parameter format, validation, or example detail beyond the structured 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 states exactly what the tool returns: the full text of one Supreme People's Court Guiding Case, including named sections such as title, keywords, holding, and case narrative. It explicitly ties the tool to cn_guiding_cases_list, making it distinguishable from the sibling list tool.

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 clearly situates the tool as a follow-up to cn_guiding_cases_list by saying the case comes 'from cn_guiding_cases_list' and the id parameter is sourced from that list. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or alternative detail tools, but the intended usage context is clear.

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