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

With annotations already declaring readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, the description adds behavioral context by specifying it returns the full complaint summary and enumerates the classification fields (participating states, lead plaintiff states, etc.). This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the agent can expect from the response.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned classifications efficiently. While it is lengthy, every clause adds useful information, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: the full complaint summary and all classification fields. It doesn't describe error scenarios or edge cases, but for a read-only, idempotent detail-fetch tool, the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation and expectation-setting.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the parameter, explaining it accepts either a numeric ID or a URL. The tool description repeats this concept but adds the detail that the URL should come from naag_multistate_cases, which is a minor enhancement. Since the schema already covers the parameter well, the description adds limited extra value.

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 clearly states the tool returns the full NAAG record for a single case, given a numeric ID or URL. It distinguishes itself from the sibling naag_multistate_cases by emphasizing it provides the complete complaint summary rather than a truncated one, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 the input comes from naag_multistate_cases, implying this tool is for obtaining details after using that listing tool. It doesn't list alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context signals when to use it, which is sufficient for most agents.

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