Read one authority

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — previews are bounded, certain fields may be clipped, and 'preview limits never require a manual download', which tells the agent truncation is normal and not an error state. The remaining gap is that the readText/readMore references are not expanded or tied to a named sibling, leaving the follow-on path slightly ambiguous.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the disambiguation and the follow-on routing. The first sentence is a long enumeration, but every clause names distinct returned content rather than padding, so there is little waste.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers what is returned, that previews are bounded, and how to get more. The only shortfall is that 'readText' and 'readMore' are referenced without mapping to the actual sibling tools (read_library_text, get_source_text), which could cost an agent a step.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself stating it is the 'case guid from a search or list result'. The description adds no further semantics about the guid (no format hints or provenance beyond what the schema says), so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the work here.

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 opens with a concrete resource ('One authority') and enumerates exactly what comes back: notes, analysis, saved quotations with pincites, projects, related-authority connections, and captured source text. It explicitly separates itself from search_cases/list_cases rows, which 'already carry a summary', so an agent can distinguish this read tool from its siblings 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?

It gives an explicit when ('when you need the whole note, the quotations, or those connections') and an explicit when-not ('not to identify a case', because search and list rows already carry a summary). It also routes to follow-on tools for full text ('readText') and for clipped fields ('readMore'), which is genuine alternative-selection guidance rather than implied usage.

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