Measured DOHA timelines: median days from Statement of Reasons to hearing and to decision, from dates stated in the decisions themselves. Optionally scoped to one decision year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Optional decision year to scope to |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral nuance by explaining that metrics are derived 'from dates stated in the decisions themselves' and that medians are computed. This provides value beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and include all necessary information. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details. Every phrase earns its place.
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 clearly states what the tool returns (median days). It covers the key aspects: what is measured, from which dates, and optional year filtering. Given the tool's simplicity and good annotation coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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 has one parameter 'year' with a description 'Optional decision year to scope to'. The tool description repeats this in prose ('Optionally scoped to one decision year'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new semantic information about the parameter, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Measured DOHA timelines: median days from Statement of Reasons to hearing and to decision'. This specifies the verb (measured/calculates), the resource (DOHA timelines), and the exact metrics (median days). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_statistics' or 'similar_cases' by focusing specifically on DOHA timeline computations.
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 provides clear usage context: it is for analyzing DOHA timelines and optionally scoping to a decision year. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the 'Optionally scoped to one decision year' implies when this tool would be relevant (year-specific queries). This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.
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.