get_ag_opinions_citing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that statutory/constitutional citations are canonicalized against installed corpora and that shorthand forms like '44-04-18' resolve. This goes beyond the schema and provides meaningful behavior without contradicting any annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supporting normalization details in the following sentences. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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 lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics, citation normalization, and supported authority types. It does not discuss zero-result behavior or limitations of the installed corpora, but these are minor gaps given the output schema and simple parameter set.

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. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying which citation types are accepted, how canonicalization works, and that shorthand citations resolve. This is genuinely helpful beyond the raw parameter 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find ND Attorney General opinions that cite a given authority.' The 'Reverse index' phrase clarifies the direction of the lookup and distinguishes it from general opinion search tools like search_ag_opinions or get_court_opinions_citing_ag.

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 indicates the triggering use case: you have a citation and want AG opinions that cite it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is concrete enough that an agent can decide when to invoke it.

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