lookup_opinion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that text is excluded by default, explains the reason (keeping responses manageable), defines the truncation behavior via text_limit, and points to get_opinion_text for chunked reading. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the input schema.

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: it starts with the core lookup action and citation forms, then states return contents, then handles text behavior. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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 output schema exists, parameter coverage is complete, and sibling tools are available, the description supplies the missing behavioral guidance: what is returned, the default text exclusion, truncation semantics, and the chunked-reading alternative. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool 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%, and each parameter already has a clear description and default. The description adds some useful framing around include_text and text_limit ('first text_limit characters', 'read in chunks'), but mostly reinforces what the schema already states. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Look up') plus resource ('an opinion') and defines the input scope ('by any citation') with concrete examples like '2024 ND 156' and '585 N.W.2d 129'. It also clarifies what is returned ('metadata and all known citations'), making it easy to distinguish from search_opinions and get_opinion_text.

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 looking up an opinion when you have a citation, and it explicitly routes text-heavy needs to include_text=True or get_opinion_text() for chunked reading. It does not explicitly say when to prefer search_opinions over this tool, but the citation-based scope strongly implies the boundary.

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