search_cases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose any side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or safety information. It only describes parameter semantics. For a search tool, it omits details like pagination or maximum result behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 verbose, listing all 8 parameters in a docstring format. It is front-loaded with the purpose sentence, but the parameter list is lengthy. While every sentence provides value, it could be more concise by grouping or omitting trivial details. The structure is clear but not optimally compact.

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 has 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description covers input well but lacks overall context. It does not mention that it returns a list of cases, or any performance considerations. The output schema likely covers return values, so this is acceptable, but some additional guidance (e.g., default limit of 10) is included.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: title as substring match, severity as exact, tags as all must match, sort with prefix for descending, dates ISO 8601 or ms timestamp. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema property names.

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 'Search for Cases in TheHive with advanced filtering capabilities.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_case (retrieves a single case) and create_case (creates). The verb 'search' and resource 'Cases' are specific, and the parameters further clarify the functionality.

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 detailed parameter explanations (e.g., sort with '-‘ prefix for descending, tags require all to match). It gives implicit guidance on how to use filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'Use get_case for a specific case without filters.' Given sibling context, it is still clear.

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