list_fraud_cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'List' communicates a non-mutating read operation and 'the 15' sets exact scope, but there is no stated behavior about output sorting, freshness, or side effects; this is adequate but minimal for a zero-parameter read tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with the main action front-loaded; every word earns its place and the second sentence adds useful conceptual context.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema present, the description gives the critical extra information: there are exactly 15 cases and each is a named SQL evidence pack. It does not explicitly connect to run_fraud_case for the next action, but that belongs to usage guidance and is not required for invoking this tool.

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 is empty and fully covers all parameters (none), so there is no parameter gap for the description to fill. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('fraud detection cases'), and adds the exact count and a definition ('named SQL evidence pack'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as run_fraud_case (executes) and list_fraud_agents (different entity).

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 that this tool is the discovery entry point for the fixed set of fraud cases, and the definition of a case hints that returned names can be used with run_fraud_case. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so guidance is only implicit.

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