get_case_view_calculated_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filtering behavior (non-view fields are filtered out). However, it omits details about error handling, side effects, or whether the operation is read-only (implied by name but not stated).

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the main action and adding a behavioral note without superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and an important 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?

Given the complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description lacks information about the return format or typical use cases. It covers the input behavior but leaves the output unaddressed, which is a gap for completeness.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only clarifying that fields not in the view are filtered. This slight addition does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 it retrieves calculated fields for a given case view, specifying the verb "Get" and the resource "calculated fields." It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_case_view by focusing on calculated fields and explaining that only requested fields are retrieved and non-view fields are filtered out.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must have a view with calculated fields) and does not mention when other tools like get_case_view might be more appropriate.

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