get_case

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value: it returns counts and identifiers rather than whole evidence bodies, and flags that an unknown id is an error rather than an empty case.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement, then clearly sectioned into WHEN and RETURNS. Every sentence carries information, and the return-field enumeration compensates for the absent output schema.

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 takes on the burden of documenting the return shape and does so explicitly, including the subtle meaning of 'sources'. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents case_id (including its error behavior). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific operation ('One case') plus what it exposes (scope, ledger sizes, grade history), and the '[READ]' tag and singular scope distinguish it from siblings like list_cases and open_case. An agent can tell what this returns without consulting the 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?

The WHEN section gives concrete triggers ('pick up an investigation', 'see why a case sits at the grade it does') and steers away from using it for full evidence, pointing to the case folder via open_case's path. It does not explicitly compare against get_case_readiness or get_case_knowledge, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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