Get Case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses the exact fields returned, the optional nature of metadata.diaryNumber, and explicitly lists fields that are NOT included. The 'without AI analysis' note clarifies the tool's non-AI behavior, which is beneficial for cost and latency expectations.

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 somewhat long due to the enumerated return fields, but the first sentence is concise and front-loaded. The field list is useful and not redundant; every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more compact but is well-structured.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a complete picture: what is returned, what is excluded, the alternative tool, and the credit behavior. This is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter id, including detailed lookup-order semantics. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Fetches full details for one case') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'without AI analysis' and directing users to get_case_analysis for excluded fields. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly states 'No AI credits consumed' (a key differentiator) and gives a specific exclusion list with a direct pointer to the alternative tool: 'call get_case_analysis for those.' This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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