dealdesk.get_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing beyond the word 'Get'. It implies a read-only retrieval but says nothing about return shape, error behavior for missing ids, or authorization constraints (the projectId/API-key matching rule lives only in the schema).

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the key scoping detail ('one case by id') front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 two-required-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the return shape, id sourcing, and failure modes. The simplicity of the operation softens this, but the definition is not complete enough to call confidently.

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 only 50%: projectId is documented in the schema, but caseId has no description anywhere. The description's phrase 'by id' faintly maps to caseId but adds no format, namespace, or sourcing detail that would compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (DealDesk case) scoped to a single record by id, which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling single-record getters like dealdesk.get_card or dealdesk.get_quote beyond the resource noun.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. It does not say to prefer this over dealdesk.list_cases for fetching a known case, nor does it mention any prerequisites for obtaining a caseId. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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