Get Case

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns 'full detail' and specifies lookup methods, but these contextual additions are moderate. The lack of output schema leaves uncertainty about return format, though the description is consistent with annotations.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and then provide usage instructions with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

The description is complete for a simple retrieval tool with good annotations. It covers lookup methods and the constraint. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., what if no case matches) and does not enumerate return fields (no output schema). Given the tool's simplicity and annotation richness, the gaps are minor.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds semantic value by grouping the three parameters as three lookup options and mandating that exactly one must be provided, which clarifies the mutual exclusivity constraint beyond schema details.

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 'Fetch one collection case in full detail', specifying the verb (fetch), resource (collection case), and scope (one case, full detail). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_cases' (multiple cases) and 'get_case_payments' (sub-aspect) by emphasizing a single case retrieval with complete information.

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 explicitly states that the case can be looked up by three identifiers and that exactly one must be provided. This gives clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly indicate when to use alternatives (e.g., 'get_case_contract_status' for status only), missing a direct comparison to sibling tools.

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