get_jeac_opinions_citing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a reverse citation index and that old-form Canon citations are indexed at canon granularity, both of which meaningfully affect query behavior. It does not mention result ordering or failure behavior, but the output schema and examples help fill that gap.

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 with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the most useful context and an important indexing caveat. Every sentence contributes.

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 query tool with an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, typical use, and a notable edge case. It does not explicitly position itself against sibling tools like get_ag_opinions_citing, but the ND JEAC scope in the name and description makes the boundary sufficiently clear.

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 any citation format works and by giving a specific example of old-form canon granularity, which the schema does not fully convey. This exceeds baseline without duplicating schema details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a clear resource: ND Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opinions that cite a given authority. It also calls itself a 'reverse index', which differentiates it from ordinary search tools and from siblings like search_jeac_opinions.

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?

It explains the most useful scenario (Code of Judicial Conduct provisions) while noting that any rule/statute/case citation works. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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