constitutional_amendments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well. It discloses the authoritative source (ndconst.org), temporal scope (1889–present, ~167 amendments), returned fields, optional date filtering, and a critical caveat about pre-1996 section numbering not mapping to current citations. This is substantial transparency beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return contents and scope, then a necessary caveat. The key action and resource are front-loaded, and the caveat about renumbering is placed at the end where it adds nuance without obscuring the main purpose.

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 its straightforward parameter set and rich output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: source, date range, fields returned, optional filters, and the important historical caveat. No critical behavioral or scoping information is missing.

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 adds value by clarifying that date_from/date_to refer to 'effective-date' filtering (not election dates or other dates) and by specifying the ISO YYYY-MM-DD format. It stops short of elaborating on limit behavior, but the schema already documents the default.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the chronology of amendments to the ND Constitution.' It then enumerates the returned fields, date range, source, and count, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This clearly differentiates it from the opinion- and authority-focused sibling tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever ND constitutional amendment chronology or amendment details are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the domain is distinct enough from all listed siblings that an agent can route correctly. A brief 'use for ND constitutional amendments, not court opinions' would make it fully explicit.

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