get_hr_case

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'full details' and accepts number or sys_id, which is useful but minimal. No additional behavioral context such as error handling or prerequisite permissions is disclosed, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 single sentence of about 12 words, highly efficient and front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description plus annotations are sufficient. The lookup methods and return scope ('full details') are clearly stated, and the context of siblings makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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% with a clear description of the parameter. The description adds an explicit example 'HRCS0001234' and clarifies the accepted formats, but this is a minor enhancement over the schema. Since the schema already carries the meaning, baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'full details of an HR case'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_hr_cases (which lists) and create/update/close_hr_case (which modify), and get_hr_case_activity (which retrieves activity, not details). The example number format adds specificity.

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 description clearly indicates how to specify the case (by number or sys_id) and gives an example format. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like list_hr_cases or get_hr_case_activity, so it lacks explicit exclusions. The context is clear but not fully differentiated.

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