Get case

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so concretely by naming the sections returned, including the claimed-vs-verified divergence. It still omits error behavior for an unknown case_id and any size/cost characteristics.

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 dense sentence with the resource and its contents front-loaded; every clause names a distinct part of the payload rather than padding. It is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly reduces readability but not information density.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the only genuine gap is the return payload, and the description enumerates it. An agent knows what it gets back and that the call is safe and idempotent; only edge-case behavior (missing case, payload size) is unstated.

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%: case_id has a format example ('case_33') and mask is documented as masking e-mails, phones and names. The description adds no further semantics about either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (one case) and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: request, subject/identifier history, resources with rule/proof/link/activity ids, planned steps, review signals, and claimed-vs-verified delta. That is far more specific than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like ghost_explain_case or ghost_get_evidence, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling is named as an alternative. Usage is only implied by the breadth of the enumerated contents ('full context'), which suggests it fits when the agent needs everything about a case at once.

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