more_like_this

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does so well by disclosing the two ranking signals, co-citation and keyword overlap, and noting that each result reports both sub-scores for explainability. It does not mention error behavior or edge cases, but that is not a critical gap for a read-style similarity search.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The first states the tool's purpose; the second explains the ranking mechanism. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the key differentiator is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter similarity search tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the ranking methodology, seed input, and explainable sub-scores. The only minor omission is explicit guidance on citation formats or edge cases, but the schema already documents the citation parameter as accepting a citation or case name.

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 already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both citation and limit. The description adds 'seed opinion' to clarify the citation parameter, but does not provide additional format or usage detail. The schema carries the load, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find opinions doctrinally similar to a given case.' It immediately distinguishes this from text search or citation-lookup tools by naming 'hybrid ranking' and its two signals. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like search_opinions or get_citing_opinions.

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 makes the intended use clear: find doctrinally similar opinions based on shared cited authorities and salient terms. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the hybrid-ranking explanation provides enough contextual guidance for selection.

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