case_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the authentication need and outlines the response structure (cluster vs. opinion fields). However, it lacks details on error behavior (e.g., missing id, invalid type) and does not mention any side effects or rate limits. For a read-only fetch, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, auth, and usage. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is well front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the complexity (two resource types) and no output schema, the description manages expectations well by listing what each resource returns (cluster fields: name, citations, date, judges, opinion ids; opinion: full text). It could mention potential errors, but for a fetch tool, the core information is present.

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 already covers both parameters with clear descriptions (id: numeric, type: enum). The description adds the context of using cluster_id from search results, but does not significantly enhance the understanding of the parameters themselves. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 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?

The description clearly states 'Fetch a full case by id' and distinguishes between two resource types: a cluster (the case) with its fields, or a single opinion. This specific verb-resource pairing and the differentiation from other tools like 'opinion_search' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 tells when to use the tool (to get full details of a case or opinion), mentions the authentication requirement, and even suggests how to obtain the id ('Use the cluster_id from opinion_search results'). It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context and sibling tools imply alternatives.

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