Get a case

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only content is a list of returned data, which duplicates the existing output schema rather than adding behavior the agent cannot already see — and it says nothing about lookup failure, missing case ids, or escalation-rung semantics.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is a sentence fragment that is not front-loaded with the action, so the reader has to reconstruct the purpose from a list of nouns.

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 an output schema already enumerates the return shape, spending the whole description on returned fields leaves the genuine gaps — required case_id, not-found behavior, and how this differs from the many sibling case_* tools — unaddressed.

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 exactly one parameter, case_id, and schema description coverage is 0% (only a title, 'Case Id'). The description never mentions the parameter, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap — nothing says how to obtain a valid case id or what identifier space it belongs to.

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 names the resource (a case) and enumerates its contents, so an agent can infer this is a fetch-by-id read. But it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb — it never states that the tool retrieves anything — and it does not distinguish itself from case_list, case_log, or case_close.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of when to call case_get versus case_list (browse), case_log (write an entry), or case_close (mutate state). An agent must infer the retrieval role purely from the tool name.

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