Get case

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two non-obvious traits: the response embeds work items, and quoted text in the payload is authored by third parties and must be treated as data, never instructions. What it omits is the operation's mutability/permission profile ("Fetch" implies read-only but this is never stated) and any note on error behavior for invalid OIDs or missing cases.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded in one clean sentence with no waste. The safety and naming guidance is dense but earns its place as non-obvious behavioral instruction, though it reads as a boilerplate insertion and slightly buries the naming rule mid-paragraph.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the untrusted-text warning covers the main safety hazard of this payload. However, for a read tool with no annotations the description should state that the call is non-mutating and clarify its relationship to get_task, list_work_items, and decide_work_item, which are natural follow-ups an agent will need.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting oid as "the midPoint object OID". The description reinforces that the OID identifies an approval case rather than an arbitrary object, which is a small but real clarification beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Fetch an approval case by OID, including its work items" gives a specific verb, resource, and lookup key, plus the notable scope detail that work items are bundled in. It stops short of differentiating from siblings such as get_task or list_work_items, which also surface work-item data, so an agent cannot fully rule those out from the description alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the single-case lookup keyed by OID, contrasted implicitly with the list_* siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of what to do when the OID is unknown, and no routing to get_task or list_work_items for related needs. The only explicit directive concerns output formatting (use display names), not tool selection.

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