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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a full record is returned but fails to mention any safety guarantees (e.g., read-only), error handling for invalid case IDs, data freshness, or authentication requirements. The description is minimal on behavioral traits.

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 sentence of 25 words, front-loaded with the core action and result. It wastes no words and is easily scannable.

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, one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the main purpose and key output feature (per-statute breakdown). However, it could be slightly improved by clarifying that it returns a single object or how it handles missing case IDs. Given the low complexity, the description is mostly complete.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters and already describes 'case_id' as the WHD case ID from other tool results. The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond the schema; it only mentions 'by its case id', which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema is complete.

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 the tool retrieves a full record for a single WHD enforcement case by case ID, and explicitly mentions the per-statute breakdown, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like employer_violations (list) or back_wages_summary (aggregation). The verb 'get' is implicit, and the resource is well-defined.

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 implies usage when a detailed per-statute breakdown for a specific case is needed, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for bulk queries) or alternatives like sibling tools. The context is implied but not stated.

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