search_similar_cases

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

No annotations are provided. The description notes that results include authority type and citation value, and implies semantic search (not keyword). However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or data scope.

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 a single clear sentence in Chinese, front-loading the purpose. It is concise but could benefit from a more structured format to include parameter details.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description focuses only on the query functionality. It does not explain how filtering parameters (cat, source, year, court) interact or describe output format. Underdescribed for the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only contextualizing the 'query' parameter with an example. No additional semantics for filtering parameters.

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 performs semantic retrieval of similar cases using natural language input, with an example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like filter_cases (structured filtering) and search_authoritative_cases (specific type search).

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 use for natural language queries to find similar cases, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like filter_cases or search_authoritative_cases. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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