authoring_justice_on_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the search scope, the author filter, the newest-first ordering, snippet output, and the limitation that only authored majority/lead opinions are reflected. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a no-annotation 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 three sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the caveat placed last. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema boilerplate.

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?

The description, combined with the rich schema and presence of an output schema, fully supports correct invocation. It defines the inputs, behavior, output style, and a key historical limitation, and it situates the tool's purpose with the bench-memo signal context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that `issue` is searched full-text and `justice` filters by author, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema; `limit` is already well documented in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'searches issue and filters to opinions authored by justice, newest first, with snippets.' It clearly differentiates from sibling opinion-search tools by focusing on opinions authored by a specific justice and framing it as a bench-memo signal.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when an agent needs opinions a justice authored on an issue, especially as a predictive bench-memo signal. It also notes the attribution limitation for separate writings before 1997, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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