search_ag_opinions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses chronological coverage, full-text search scope, relevance ranking, and snippet-based return behavior. For a read-only search tool, this is adequate; it does not claim or hide any mutating behavior.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, the domain context in the second is informative, and the return behavior closes it efficiently.

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 100% parameter documentation and an existing output schema, the description covers invocation and expected results well. It adds useful domain context about the legal materials the opinions construe. The only notable gap is explicit guidance on competing sibling search tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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 input schema already documents query, year, limit, and opinion_type. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond clarifying that matching is 'full-text' and results include 'snippets,' so the rubric baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Full-text search across ND Attorney General opinions (1942–present).' It also states the output ('matching opinions ranked by relevance with snippets'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from lookup or faceted sibling tools.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need full-text relevance search across AG opinions, especially on ND statutes, constitution, court rules, or open-records law. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like lookup_ag_opinion for known citations or search_boolean/search_faceted for advanced query modes, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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