get_case_search_context

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

The description mentions the tool does not execute a search, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it should also disclose authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description is too minimal.

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 succinct (one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not front-loaded well and lacks explanation of parameters. It is concise but not sufficiently informative.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and sibling tools that are not differentiated, the description is incomplete. The output schema exists but the description does not clarify the return value or parameter roles. More context is needed.

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 description mentions case_ref and search criteria, but the input schema includes other parameters (pathway, correlation_id) and a search_criteria input that is confusing. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify these parameters.

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 the action (resolve) and the resource (case_ref to search criteria), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it does not execute the search. However, it could be more specific about the output.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_providers or list_search_pathways. The context for use is implied but not explicit.

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