List cases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes the row contents returned (status, risks, steps, confidence, needs_manual_review), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether filters combine with AND or OR — behavior an agent would want before paging through 600 rows.

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 tight sentence pair with zero boilerplate; the return shape and the follow-up pointer are both front-loaded, and every clause carries 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?

For a 7-param filter tool with no output schema the description does name the returned columns, which is helpful. But it leaves the status/claimed distinction, filter composition, and limit default (50, max 600) unexplained, which are exactly the ambiguities the structured fields cannot resolve.

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 coverage is only 43%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all; it only names the return fields. Most critically, the two enum params status (COMPLETE/INCOMPLETE/NOT_APPLICABLE) and claimed (COMPLETE/PARTIALLY_COMPLETE/NOT_STARTED) are near-identical in surface form, and only the description could explain how an assessed status differs from a claimed status — it does not.

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?

A specific verb (filter) plus resource (cases), with the returned row shape spelled out so the agent knows what it gets back. It also positions itself relative to ghost_get_case, letting an agent separate listing from fetching without opening a schema.

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?

"Use before ghost_get_case" gives a clear sequencing rule covering the main workflow. It does not address alternatives such as ghost_review_queue for needs_manual_review=true, nor whether this is the right tool for bulk exports, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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