Get Case

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the type of data returned (metadata fields), which goes beyond the annotation. However, it does not mention response language behavior or potential limitations, so it's not a 5.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the verb and object, then concisely lists the returned fields. Every word is informative with no redundancy, making it easily scannable for an AI agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries responsibility for explaining return values, and it does so by listing the main metadata fields. It adequately covers the essential behavior for a simple read-only tool, though it omits details like response structure or error handling. Given the tool's simplicity and the provided schema, this is sufficiently complete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, each with clear meaning (caseId from list_cases, language enum, databaseId example). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('metadata for a specific case') while listing the key fields returned (title, citation, decision date, keywords, URL). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_legislation (which targets legislation) and get_case_citations (which returns citations) by focusing on case metadata retrieval.

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 metadata for a specific case rather than a list (list_cases) or legislation (get_legislation), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any exclusion criteria or direct reference to sibling tools, so guidance is only implied.

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