get_provision_xrefs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and exceeds it: it discloses point-in-time edge semantics, default current version, handling of unresolved targets (resolved=false rather than dropped), and cross-corpus scope. This is precisely the behavioral nuance an agent needs.

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 dense paragraphs that are front-loaded with the definition, then organized into outbound/inbound, point-in-time, and edge-case behavior. Every clause adds information; the parenthetical examples are illustrative, not padding.

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?

Covers what counts as a provision, both citation directions, installation-dependent resolve behavior, point-in-time semantics, defaults, and unresolved-target policy. Combined with the output schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 already describes each parameter, so baseline is 3; the description adds real value by binding as_of_date to in-force versions on that date and explaining how unresolved citations behave. It also clarifies the scope of citation (primary-law provisions) with concrete examples.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cross-references between primary-law provisions,' then enumerates outbound/inbound directions and the source types (statute, court rule, constitutional, admin-code). This clearly distinguishes it from opinion-focused siblings like get_citing_opinions and search_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?

Provides strong context: use it for statute/rule/constitution/admin-code cross-reference analysis, with inbound referencing across all corpora. However, it never names when-not-to-use or points to a sibling (e.g., get_citing_opinions for opinion citations), so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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