atlas_case_study_lookup

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, destructive false, idempotent. Description adds rate limits ('Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr'), default SLIM response with truncated description, and 404 behavior when id not found. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise with around 5 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Some clutter (e.g., 'next_calls emits exactly that hint') could be streamlined, but overall efficient.

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?

Given output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description fully covers error responses, rate limits, parameter behavior, and workflow integration hints. No gaps identified.

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 coverage is 100%. Description enhances understanding by providing format for case_study_id ('AML.CS####'), and explaining the include parameter's default vs 'full' behavior (description truncation to 240 chars and potential 1-3KB for full).

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?

Specifically describes the tool as looking up a MITRE ATLAS case study, a documented real-world AI/ML attack incident. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like atlas_case_study_search and atlas_technique_lookup by focusing on retrieval by ID.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this after atlas_technique_search to find which incidents have exercised a given technique.' Also mentions the next_calls hint for follow-up. Does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear.

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