arbitration__get_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool fetches a record with rulings, but does not mention whether it is read-only, authorization requirements, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if case_id is invalid). The behavioral disclosure is insufficient.

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 very concise (one sentence) but lacks essential details about parameters and behavior. While brevity is good, it comes at the cost of completeness. It is neither overly verbose nor efficiently informative.

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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not provide enough context for safe and correct usage. Missing details include parameter semantics, possible return values, and error conditions. It leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to the `case_id` parameter beyond what is in the schema. It does not clarify the expected format, uniqueness, or how to obtain the ID. This leaves the AI without necessary context for parameter usage.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full case record, including any ruling.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like `arbitration__list_cases` (listing) and `arbitration__file_case` (creating), so the purpose is specific and clear.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as `arbitration__list_cases` for browsing or `arbitration__verify_ruling` for verification. The context is implied but not stated, leaving the AI to infer appropriate usage.

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