lookup_jeac_opinion

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

The description discloses what is returned (metadata, question digest, authorities, optionally text) and documents input normalization behavior for two-digit and four-digit years. It does not mention behavior for missing opinion numbers or permission requirements, but for a read-only lookup the disclosed behavior is solid.

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 with the core purpose, then details returns and normalization. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy.

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 lookup tool with a rich output schema, the description covers the essential call behavior: what the tool retrieves, what it returns, the supported input number formats, and the optional text parameter. No critical missing information prevents an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 extra semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that '96-1' and '1996-1' resolve equivalently, which clarifies opinion_number formatting. It also aligns with include_text and text_limit by describing optional text output.

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 ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('ND Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opinion'), and clarifies the lookup is by number with concrete examples. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_jeac_opinions and lookup_opinion.

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 makes clear this tool is for retrieving a specific opinion by its number, which implies use when the opinion number is already known. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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