get_case

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that by disclosing the returned contents (deadline, vote counts per date, class period, announcing firms, linked docket, matched source announcements), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 that leads with the two retrieval modes before the field list. The trailing enumeration is long but every item is informative about the return payload, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is the sole source of contract information. It documents return fields well, but omits ambiguous-case handling (both params supplied, neither supplied) and any pagination or volume limits for the ticker-wide mode.

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 the parameter burden, and it does clarify that case_id selects one case while ticker selects all cases for a ticker. It does not explain precedence when both are supplied or behavior when neither is given, leaving a real gap.

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 clearly: returns full detail for one case by id, or all cases for a ticker, and enumerates what detail means. An agent can tell it apart from a bulk lister without opening the schema, though it never names the sibling tools (list_cases, search_announcements) it is distinct from.

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 the usage modes (by id vs by ticker) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as list_cases for browsing. An agent must infer that this is the detail-retrieval endpoint.

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