Case status summary

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description usefully adds the backing endpoint (GET /aggregates/case-status), the deprecation of the 'pending' status, and the 403 behavior when cases are not enabled for a team. That is genuine operational context beyond structured fields, though no rate-limit or pagination detail is given.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by optional scoping and an edge-case note; nothing is repetitive. The long parenthetical status list and filter enumeration make it dense, but each clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and 'how many cases are in each status' does so adequately for a count-by-status aggregate. Combined with the 403 caveat and status vocabulary, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, though the exact response structure is not spelled out.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all four parameters, including the assigned_to=false meaning for unassigned and the date precision rules. The description largely restates those filters; its only added semantic is that 'pending' is deprecated, which is modest value.

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 aggregation verb and resource ('How many cases are in each status') and enumerates the exact status vocabulary, so an agent knows this returns counts, not a case list. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_records or get_check, which return entities rather than aggregates.

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 spells out the optional scoping dimensions (single assignee, unassigned, status-update date range, active vs archived), which implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not, however, name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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