get_case_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further with real behavioral disclosure: version-checking only happens when case_id is passed, and the GOTCHAS explain that decisive matching is by version applicability, not similarity, and that silence is not a pass. That is meaningful context beyond structured fields.

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-loads the one-line purpose then uses WHEN/RETURNS/GOTCHAS headings, which scan well. It is on the verbose side (long GOTCHAS prose), but each section carries distinct information rather than padding.

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 return-value explanation and does so thoroughly: it enumerates the return keys, describes what `formats` and `needs_conversion` contain, and pre-empts the most likely misreading (showing how entries qualify as decisive). An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 description coverage is 100% and the case_id description already explains omission vs. passing a case id and the resulting `applicable`/`decisive_here` fields. The prose only restates that behavior, adding no syntax or format detail the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource: 'What the knowledge layer accepts, and what is mounted.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_case_readiness or get_case, though the terms 'knowledge layer' and 'mounted' are domain jargon that isn't defined inline.

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 block gives explicit triggering conditions ('when someone asks what can be added to make conclusions stronger', 'when a case will not reach Confirmed'). It does not name competing siblings (e.g. get_case_readiness) or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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