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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses credential requirements, cost, and the return shape (summary followed by full reasons), but omits details such as error behavior or whether the operation is strictly read-only.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The return shape and credential/cost facts each earn their place, and the text is front-loaded around the core use case.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the main use case, return content, and access cost. It is nearly complete, though citation format and error conditions are left unspecified.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps the citation parameter to a decision reference number, adding meaning beyond the bare schema, but gives no format or examples for the citation.

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 what the tool does: given a decision reference number, it returns a short summary and the judge’s full reasons. This clearly identifies the retrieved resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as list_judgments or verify_judgment.

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 first sentence provides an implied use case: you have a decision’s reference number and want to understand its reasoning. It does not state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, so usage guidance remains minimal.

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