get_results_for_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of signaling side effects; 'Get' does indicate a read-only retrieval and there is no contradiction. However, it does not explain pagination defaults, whether multiple result entries per case/run are possible, or how the result set is organized, so behavioral insight beyond the verb is thin.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema. Every word contributes meaning.

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 one-line description is minimally viable for a simple query tool, especially with a fully documented schema, but it omits any explanation of returned shape or pagination behavior, and there is no output schema to compensate. It also does not mention how the optional filters combine, leaving the agent to infer behavior.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all nine parameters, including defaults and allowed values. The description adds only the conceptual mapping of run_id and case_id to 'a case in a run' and provides no additional parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('results'), and scopes it to 'a case in a run', which disambiguates it from siblings like get_results_for_run and get_case. This is a clear, distinguishing purpose statement.

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 'for a case in a run' implies this tool should be used when the caller has both run_id and case_id and wants case-level results, but it never explicitly states when to prefer get_results_for_run or get_results instead. Usage must be inferred from the schema and sibling names rather than directly stated.

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