get_cases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve cases,' implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if filters are omitted. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 with only two sentences, front-loading the action and defining the resource. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no unnecessary information.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the response contains (e.g., fields, structure, pagination). It does not mention that results are paginated, even though the schema includes a 'page_cursor' parameter. The tool's context is incomplete for a retrieval endpoint.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact or recommended usage, but it does not contradict the schema. Baseline score of 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves cases, defining them as customer inquiries/issues from Sprout Social. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('cases'), and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the distinct resource name 'cases' among tools like 'get_messages' and 'get_users' makes the purpose self-evident.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information is provided. The description only states the basic function, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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