List the most-cited (landmark) judgments in the corpus, ranked by how many other cases cite them. A good entry point for the leading authorities on Pakistani law.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ranked by citation count, which is useful, but does not detail pagination or response behavior beyond what the schema/annotations already 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and adding a brief usage hint. Every word serves a purpose.
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 operation with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose and usage context adequately. The only shortfall is lack of parameter explanation, but the schema itself provides defaults and constraints, so overall completeness is strong.
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 input schema has three nested parameters (limit, offset, response_format) but the description provides no information about them. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and defaults.
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 function: 'List the most-cited (landmark) judgments in the corpus, ranked by how many other cases cite them.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the ranking criterion distinguishes it from sibling tools like caselaw_search or caselaw_get_case.
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 'A good entry point for the leading authorities on Pakistani law' provides clear context for when to use it (for discovering landmark cases). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but implies it as an overview tool.
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 operation: fetching a case by ID, searching full-text, resolving a citation, traversing the citation graph forward or backward, and listing landmark cases. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools share the caselaw_ prefix and mostly follow a verb-first pattern (get_case, get_citations, get_cited_by, lookup_citation, search). The exception is caselaw_most_cited, which uses an adjective phrase rather than a verb, causing a minor inconsistency.
Six tools is well-scoped for a legal research server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The read-only domain of case law research is well covered: search, retrieval, citation lookup, and both directions of citation traversal are present. The landmark listing provides an entry point, and there are no obvious dead ends in the research flow.