get_case

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful constraint—the tenant-boundary scoping and read-only retrieval semantics of 'Retrieve.' However, it does not disclose error behavior for missing/non-accessible cases, auth requirements, or return expectations, which are meaningful gaps for an unannotated 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?

A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. The tenant-boundary qualifier earns its place as a scope constraint.

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 retrieve-by-ID tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it retrieves and under what scope boundary. Missing output-format and error details are minor for this complexity tier.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It connects case_id to 'support case' and the tenant-boundary constraint, adding some meaning beyond the bare name. Still, it provides no format, example, or uniqueness detail for case_id—though the single self-explanatory parameter name reduces the need for heavy elaboration.

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?

'Retrieve a support case' states a specific verb and resource, and the tenant-boundary clause adds a precise scope constraint. The resource (case) is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (account summary, account freeze), though the description stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied through the verb and resource—call this when you have a case_id and need case details. The tenant-boundary scoping hints at context, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no condition that routes the agent to get_account_summary or request_account_freeze.

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