The most similar decided cases to a given case, ranked by how alike the ALLEGATIONS read (never by outcome). Same list shown on the case page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, 1-10 (default 5) | |
| case_id | Yes | The numeric case id |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying the ranking is based on allegations and never on outcome, and that it mirrors a list on the case page. This is sufficient for a safe read operation, though rate limits or auth requirements are not mentioned (acceptable given simple tool).
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, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase adds value: 'most similar decided cases', 'ranked by how alike the ALLEGATIONS read (never by outcome)', and 'Same list shown on the case page'. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, annotations present), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and context. It could be enhanced by briefly mentioning the output format (e.g., list of case IDs and similarity scores), but it is sufficient for a ranked list tool that mirrors a known UI element.
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%, with both 'case_id' and 'limit' already described clearly in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information (e.g., format, defaults beyond schema). 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 returns the most similar decided cases to a given case, ranked by allegation similarity (not outcome), and notes it's the same list shown on the case page. This provides a specific verb-resource relationship and distinguishes it from outcome-based or search tools among siblings.
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 implies usage for finding cases with similar allegations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_cases, get_case) or provide exclusions. The mention of 'never by outcome' hints at differentiation, but no sibling names or when-not conditions are given.
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.