Get case

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the API endpoint path, which is minor, and the fact that participants/plans are returned by name (not ID) – but it does not disclose behavior of include_contact_details or the sensitivity of exposing PII/emails, which is the relevant behavioral trait here.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the operation and its subject fields, followed by the endpoint. No wasted words; slightly dense but efficient.

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 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is close to sufficient. The one remaining gap is guidance on when to set include_contact_details true (PII implications), which would help an agent choose correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (case_uuid, include_contact_details) are fully documented in the schema with defaults and the PII flag explained. The description enumerates return fields but adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 (retrieve) and resource (a single case by UUID) and enumerates the returned fields, distinguishing it from list_cases and get_client. An agent can route between this and list_cases without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'One case by UUID' implies single-item lookup versus the sibling list_cases, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is stated. Usage is inferable from the name and sibling set, not spelled out.

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