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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it declares the tool is free, read-only in effect, lists the full status state machine (received/triaged/fixing/fixed/wont_fix), and notes a resolution note may be returned. It omits error/unknown-case behavior and pagination, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the '[FREE]' tag and the core action, with no redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be spelled out, yet the description still previews the key returned fields. For a single-required-param read tool with no annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the parameter (case_id), gives its expected format/prefix (afb_...), and tells the agent where the value comes from (the report_issue flow). No syntax variants or error cases are covered.

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 ('look up the status of a case') and explicitly links to the sibling tool that created the case (report_issue), so an agent can distinguish it from other lookup tools in a very large sibling list.

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?

Makes clear this runs after filing via report_issue and requires the returned case_id, giving a clear usage context. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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