search_jeac_opinions

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behavioral and data-reliability traits: it searches full text, covers opinions from 1990 onward, and warns that the Code of Judicial Conduct has been restructured so cited rule/canon references may be outdated. This goes beyond a simple operation statement and helps the agent interpret results correctly, though it does not detail result ordering or read-only guarantees.

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: the first sentence states the core function, the second adds useful topical context, and the third gives a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the note is positioned at the end where it can amplify rather than obscure the main purpose.

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?

The description is well-rounded for a search tool: it gives temporal scope, subject areas, and a crucial caveat about Code restructurings. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and the schema covers parameters. The main gap is a lack of explicit guidance on how this search differs from sibling search tools, but the domain-specific name largely compensates.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (query, year, limit) fully. The description adds domain context (topics like recusal and campaign conduct) but does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Full-text search') and resource ('ND Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opinions') with a temporal scope (1990–present). It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling search tools like search_opinions or search_ag_opinions, relying instead on the domain-specific name and content context.

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 when to use this tool—when searching the full text of North Dakota judicial ethics advisory opinions—and gives helpful topic context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria from the tool name and sibling list.

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