How cases with a candor allegation (falsification, omission, or lack of candor) were resolved in the decided record: the favorable rate with vs without such an allegation, when the judge found a deliberate falsification vs when the applicant rebutted it, and when the applicant corrected the record before being confronted. Counts and denominators throughout. Descriptive, never a prediction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds value by stating 'Descriptive, never a prediction' and 'Counts and denominators throughout,' which inform the user about the nature and format of the output beyond what the annotations provide.
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 concise and well-structured, using a single sentence with internal lists to enumerate the breakdowns, followed by a terse caveat. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output, with no redundancy.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully captures the tool's scope, the specific categories of outcomes, and the inclusion of counts and denominators. It also notes the descriptive nature, making the tool's functionality clear and 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies, as the description adds no parameter-specific semantics but also doesn't need to.
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 provides resolution statistics for cases with candor allegations, specifying breakdowns such as favorable rate with vs without allegation, deliberate falsification vs rebuttal, and correction before confrontation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_case and get_statistics by focusing on a specialized analytic scope.
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 clarifies the tool is descriptive, not predictive, indicating it should be used for historical outcome rates rather than forecasting. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond the prediction caveat, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct function: searching, retrieving a specific case, finding similar cases, and four different statistical analyses (overall, candor-related, conduct recency, and timeline). No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_ for retrieval, search_ for searching, similar_ for similarity. The verbs vary appropriately with the action, and snake_case is used consistently.
Seven tools is well within the ideal range for a search-and-analytics server. Each tool covers a necessary capability without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full workflow: comprehensive searching (search_cases), detailed case retrieval (get_case), similarity exploration (similar_cases), and four distinct statistical views (candor, conduct recency, overall statistics, timelines). No significant gaps are apparent for the stated purpose.