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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral nuance: ranking is based on how allegations read, not outcome, and the output mirrors the case page's similar-cases list. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler or repetition of schema details. The key qualifier ('never by outcome') is included without wasted words, making the description easy to scan and understand.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool, the description provides sufficient information: what it returns, how results are ranked, and where the same list appears. No output schema exists, but the description's 'most similar decided cases' conveys the expected result adequately.

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?

Both parameters (case_id and limit) are fully described in the input schema, including default and range. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 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 identifies the tool's function: retrieve the most similar decided cases for a given case, ranked by allegation similarity rather than outcome. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_case and search_cases, and the 'never by outcome' qualifier removes ambiguity.

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 phrase 'same list shown on the case page' provides practical context for when this tool is appropriate. The explicit 'never by outcome' serves as an implicit exclusion for outcome-based similarity needs, though it does not name alternative tools for that purpose.

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