lookup_authority

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the automatic 1889<->1981 constitutional renumbering behavior, the requested_citation/returned_provision/relation/note linkage, the returned fields, and the fallback message when the corpus is not installed. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 organized into four focused paragraphs: core action, as-of-date usage, constitutional renumbering, and return contents. Each sentence contributes necessary operational detail, and the most important information is front-loaded in the first line.

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, the description covers all essential context: what can be looked up, how to cite, how historical versions work, how constitution renumbering is handled, what the response includes, and what happens if data is unavailable. The presence of an output schema makes this even more sufficient.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: citation format examples, the ISO YYYY-MM-DD requirement, the historical-version semantics of as_of_date, and the constitutional renumbering special cases. It transforms generic parameter descriptions into practically usable guidance.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve the text of a ND constitutional, statutory, court-rule, or administrative provision.' It enumerates the authority types and gives concrete citation examples, making the tool's role distinct from opinion-search and authority-history siblings. The purpose is unmistakable and immediately actionable.

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 usage context: when to use as_of_date, what happens when it is omitted, and how this supports reading a statute 'as the court applied it' in older opinions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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