find_opinions_construing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it: it states the result includes the matched authority (or authorities when ambiguous), the citing opinions sorted newest first, and the provision text when available. This discloses ordering, ambiguity handling, and a conditional output without contradicting any annotation.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives the most useful input examples and return behavior in a compact block. Every sentence contributes; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 2-parameter lookup tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the authority input formats, match behavior, ordering, and conditional extra output. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful value by listing concrete accepted formats for the authority parameter (e.g., '14-09-06.2', 'N.D.R.Crim.P. 12'). It does not add anything for the limit parameter, whose schema description is already sufficient.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: it finds opinions citing or construing an N.D.C.C. section, court rule, or constitutional provision. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_citing_opinions, which are likely case-oriented, and from generic search_opinions, without relying on the tool name alone.

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 clear this is the tool for statutory, court-rule, and constitutional authority references by giving the accepted reference forms. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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