fall uebersicht

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the breadth of the returned aggregate (parties, proceedings, deadlines, tasks, events, document list with Kennung/Titel/Datum/Stand, plus uncaptured files). It does not discuss pagination, volume limits, or auth requirements, keeping it below 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the overview scope and followed by the routing note. Every clause earns its place by naming a returned data category; no filler.

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, the description carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating the sections of the overview. Only minor gaps remain (volume, ordering, or handling of missing/uncaptured data), so it is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool.

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 single 'fall' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Fallkennung wie R-0001'. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for a fully-covered schema is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific resource (Fall) and an aggregation verb (Übersicht) and enumerates exactly what the overview contains: Beteiligte, Verfahren, offene Fristen/Aufgaben, Ereignisse, Dokumentliste, nicht erfasste Dateien. It also names the sibling (dokument_text) for a capability it deliberately excludes, so an agent can distinguish it from other case tools without opening a schema.

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 closing sentence 'Dokumentinhalte über dokument_text' explicitly routes document-content retrieval to an alternative, which is clear usage guidance. It does not, however, state when-not to call this tool (e.g. cost/scope limits) or mention other case-listing siblings like faelle_auflisten.

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