get_support_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state any permissions needed, what 'detailed information' includes, or error behavior for nonexistent cases. The description simply says 'Get detailed information' without elaborating on any side effects, prerequisites, or output specifics beyond generic wording.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It does not specify the structure of 'detailed information' or potential error conditions, which would be useful given that no output schema exists to clarify return values.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'name' parameter, including an example format. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema describes, so the baseline 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 detailed information for a specific support case, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('support case'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_support_cases (listing many) and get_case_comments (getting comments rather than case details).

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 implies usage when you need details for a known case, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of using list/search first to find the case or that get_case_comments is for comments, so guidance is only implicit.

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