opencdr_case_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond that: history is immutable, evidence is retained, the access view is tied to the signer's own account, and behavior differs between Fleet and Core mode. It still does not describe return shape or how paging behaves, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short blocks: purpose first, then the view enumeration, then behavioral caveats. No filler, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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 five-parameter, no-output-schema tool with zero schema documentation, the definition covers the mode/authority question and the view choice but leaves the relationship between case_id/attachment_id and the views unresolved, and says nothing about pagination semantics of after/limit.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the burden. It does valuable work by enumerating the valid `view` values (the schema has no enum), but `case_id`, `attachment_id`, `after`, and `limit` receive no explanation at all, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 (read) and enumerates the four resources it can return: case, immutable history, retained evidence, and the signer's account access. This is far more specific than the bare tool name and the view enumeration hints at the boundary with list/active siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 tells the agent which values to pass for `view` but never states when to prefer this tool over opencdr_case_active, opencdr_cases_list, or opencdr_library_evidence. The caveat that status labels 'do not execute an investigation or change detection handling' is a useful usage constraint, but selection guidance remains implied.

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