case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that discoverExposure is omitted as a workaround for a server-side error, which is a useful limitation. However, it provides no details about authentication, rate limits, response shape, or what 'query case' actually returns, leaving major behavioral aspects unclear.

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 a lengthy, unstructured dump of all parameter names, repeating what's in the schema. The example is truncated with '...', and the key note about discoverExposure is buried at the end. Important information is not front-loaded, and the verbosity adds little value.

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 tool with 54 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the meaning of the required 'by' parameter, the relationships among nested children/comments/groups/pods/roles, or what the query returns. The discoverExposure note hints at a known limitation but doesn't cover the overall data shape.

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% (each parameter has at least a GraphQL type), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a partial example showing how to structure filter and order objects, which gives some semantic nuance beyond bare types. However, the long list of parameter names is redundant with the schema, and most nested filter/order pairs are not explained.

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 says 'Cases · query case.' which is barely more than a restatement of the tool name. It doesn't clarify whether this retrieves a single case by ID, a list, or something else, and it fails to distinguish from the sibling 'cases' tool or update_case.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only mention of another tool is the note to use graphql_query for discoverExposure, but that's about a missing field, not general usage. No context for selection is provided.

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