get_citing_opinions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses ordering by date, that matching is based on text references, and the prerequisite extraction step. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, failure modes, empty-result handling, or potential cost/performance aspects.

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 extremely concise: a clear one-line purpose followed by two useful sentences on behavior and prerequisite. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 is complete enough for a simple two-parameter tool, especially with an output schema present. It covers the main behavior, ordering, and the key prerequisite. Minor omissions like empty-result behavior or failure modes prevent a higher score.

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 of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it references the extraction prerequisite but not how parameters interact with it.

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 verb ('find') and resource ('opinions that cite a given opinion'), and the second clarifies results are opinions referencing the citation in text. This also distinguishes the tool from reciprocal siblings like get_cited_authorities and general lookup/search 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 implies when to use the tool: when you need opinions that cite a known citation. It adds a clear prerequisite (citation extraction must have been run), but it does not name alternatives or give explicit when-not conditions.

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