get_case_raw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return behavior ('complete unfiltered API response with all available fields'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention side effects (though 'get' implies read-only), potential large payloads, or any security/privacy caveats about raw data. The transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-line purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds essential information, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, parameter format, and return value. It does not describe error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for a raw data fetch tool. The sibling context helps clarify its place, and the description itself provides sufficient detail.

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 schema only defines case_number as a string with no description. The tool description compensates by adding a concrete example ('e.g., "01234567"') and clarifying that it is a case number. This provides meaningful semantic value beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get ALL raw fields from a case for debugging/discovery.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling get_case by emphasizing 'ALL raw fields' and the debugging/discovery intent, making the tool's unique role obvious.

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?

It states a clear usage context: 'for debugging/discovery.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_case or mention when to use a different tool. Since no explicit when-not guidance is provided, it falls short of a 5 but provides a clear context.

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