get_court_opinions_citing_jeac

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

With no annotations present, the description takes on full responsibility for revealing behavior. It discloses the key non-obvious behavior: references are usually descriptive prose rather than formal citations, matching is done on surrounding text, and omitted opinion_number returns unresolved prose references. This goes well beyond what the schema alone reveals.

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: the purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by the distinguishing direction and the key usage nuance. The illustrative quote earns its place and no sentences are redundant with the schema.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the optional parameter, the existing output schema, and the fully described call patterns (with and without opinion_number), an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly. It even anticipates the unusual citation style that would otherwise make results confusing.

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 meaning by explaining why a JEAC opinion number is often not useful ('courts rarely cite these by number'), giving an example ('2005-2'), and clarifying that omitting the parameter returns ALL committee references including unresolved prose. This is a modest but real increment over 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 opens with a specific verb ('Find') and a precise resource ('ND Supreme Court / Court of Appeals opinions') that reference a JEAC opinion or the committee, which immediately separates it from the many other citation tools. It then names the relationship as 'the inbound direction of the JEAC citation graph,' making the distinction from outbound tools (e.g., get_jeac_opinions_citing) clear enough without requiring schema inspection.

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 operational guidance: call with no opinion_number for all committee references, and provides context that courts rarely cite by number. It implies the alternative outbound direction but does not explicitly name a sibling tool as the alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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