Fetch one decided DOHA case in full: what was alleged, the judge's findings per allegation, per-guideline formal findings, outcome, judge, representation, and appeal history. Use case_id from search_cases.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes | The numeric case id from search_cases |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already confirm readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the output contents (allegations, findings, outcome, etc.), which goes beyond the structured fields. No contradictions or missing traits like rate limits.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value; no fluff or repetition.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description compensates by listing all key output components (allegations, findings, outcome, etc.), making it complete enough for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes case_id as 'The numeric case id from search_cases'. The description repeats this guidance but adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.
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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one decided DOHA case in full'. It enumerates specific content (allegations, findings, outcome, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_cases (searching) and get_candor_outcomes (specific aspect).
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 explicitly says 'Use case_id from search_cases', guiding the agent to call search_cases first. It implies context but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives beyond the sibling list.
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 aspect of the DOHA case record: searching, fetching full case, finding similar cases, and four different statistical analyses (candor, conduct recency, timelines, overall statistics). There is no ambiguity between tool purposes.
Most tools use a 'get_' prefix, but 'search_cases' uses 'search_' and 'similar_cases' uses an adjective instead of a verb. This mix of conventions, while readable, lacks a consistent pattern.
Seven tools is well-scoped for the domain of exploring DOHA security clearance decisions. It covers both data retrieval (search, case fetch, similarity) and various descriptive statistics without being overwhelming.
The tool surface covers core operations: search, case detail, similarity, and key statistics. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for listing all guidelines or judges, but these are not essential for the primary analysis purpose.