get_notes_of_decisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that signals are heuristic and non-authoritative, tells the user to read the returned context and full opinion before relying on them, explains subsection parsing validity, and notes which provision version was in force. This is unusually transparent about output trustworthiness and limitations.

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 long, but the length is earned: it front-loads the purpose, follows with per-opinion field definitions, and ends with an important reliability caveat. It is somewhat dense, but every paragraph carries substantive, non-redundant information.

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 complexity — 8 parameters, rich output, no annotations — the description covers the essential behavioral and output semantics thoroughly: grouping, ranking, per-opinion fields, subsection validation, version context, and heuristic limitations. The output schema exists, so detailed return-structure documentation is not required here.

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 parameter documentation already handles most meaning. The description adds contextual value around concepts like subsection pinpoints and ranking signals, but it does not substantially expand on the parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific resource (statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, admin-code sections) and a specific deliverable: annotated notes of decisions with citing sentences, subsections, and depth-of-treatment signals. It also distinguishes itself from find_opinions_construing's 'bare list,' so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

Gives clear context that this is the richer, grouped-and-ranked research view, and explicitly names find_opinions_construing as the sparser alternative. It does not state hard when-not-to-use conditions, but the alternative is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable selection.

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