Case study

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the fields returned, but it does not describe other behavioral details such as error handling for invalid slugs.

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 compact sentence with no wasted wording. It front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently lists the returned content.

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 one-parameter read operation with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the important missing information: what a full case study includes. No output schema exists, so enumerating the returned fields is especially valuable and sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema with an enum of valid values and a note that it comes from list_case_studies. The description itself adds no parameter guidance, so it relies on the schema as expected when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states that this retrieves exactly one case study in full, and it enumerates the content included: client type, role, timeline, status, problem, build, results, stack, and links. This distinguishes it from the sibling list_case_studies, which returns the list rather than the full record.

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: use this to get full details for a single case study when the slug is known. The description does not explicitly say when to use this versus list_case_studies or what to do if the slug is unknown, though the schema notes the slug comes from list_case_studies.

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