search_authority

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 the default is the currently in-force version, explains as_of_date semantics, describes corpus restriction, and details the excerpt format including the >>>term<<< convention and fallback to citation/heading when the match is only in those fields.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope, default behavior, historical search, corpus filtering, and result excerpt semantics are all covered without filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape is already covered. The description supplies everything else needed to invoke correctly: scope, default-versus-historical behavior, corpus filter values, and excerpt marking. Remaining details like limit and query syntax are already in the schema.

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 mostly restates as_of_date and corpus_name information already present in the schema, adding only minor extra context like ISO format and allowed values. The excerpt-format details are output-oriented rather than parameter semantics, so no meaningful boost is warranted.

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 primary law (Constitution, court rules, statutes, administrative code).' It further clarifies that it searches provision text and headings, which distinguishes it from opinion-search siblings like search_opinions, search_ag_opinions, and search_jeac_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?

The description clearly establishes when to use this tool: for full-text search of North Dakota primary law, with optional as_of_date for historical versions and corpus_name to restrict scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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