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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation but lacks details on return format, data size, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The phrase 'full record + source text' is vague.

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 sentences, front-loading the action and resource. It is concise and free of redundancy, though a bit more structure (e.g., separating inputs and outputs) could improve clarity.

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 fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns (full record + source text), and the input identifier. It also contextualizes its relationship to search. It lacks mention of error cases or missing IDs, but is mostly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage for the 'id' parameter, only naming it 'Id'. The description adds 'its id (package_id)', clarifying the parameter's role beyond the schema. However, no format or constraints are provided.

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 explicitly states 'Fetch the full record + source text of one case by its id (package_id)', clearly identifying the verb, resource, and identifier. It also distinguishes itself from search by calling it a 'deep-research companion to search', differentiating from the sibling search 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 implies usage as a companion to search, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_case or get_case_text. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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