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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content-level context about what a decision record contains (question, rationale, decider, linked tasks, versions), but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown ref or any access constraints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words; the resource and identifier come first, followed by a compact enumeration of the payload an agent can expect.

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?

With no output schema, the description shoulders the burden of describing the return, and it does so by listing the decision's fields. It is slightly incomplete on failure modes and ref discovery, but adequate for a simple one-parameter read tool.

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 0% for the single 'ref' parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does by giving the 'DEC-004' example, which conveys the expected identifier format, but doesn't state that ref is required or that it must be an existing decision ID.

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+resource: retrieve one decision identified by a ref, and gives a concrete ref example (DEC-004). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling fenbs_list_decisions by emphasizing 'One decision', though it never explicitly names an alternative tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single decision when you already have its ref. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of switching to fenbs_list_decisions to find a ref first, and no exclusions.

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