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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: read-only nature, return fields, result enum values (found_record vs no_record), typed refusal variants (closed/no_record/not_observed), and the safe_to_proceed flag. This is rich, decision-relevant behavioral detail.

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 clause adds information: purpose, return contract, refusal semantics, safety directive, and ownership. It is dense but structured with semicolons and front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description fully specifies the return contract and the failure modes an agent must handle. It also clarifies ownership and the action boundary, leaving no critical ambiguity for invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for surface (not_observed vs no_record on unobserved surfaces) and for the question. Other parameters (area, type, owner) are adequately handled by the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Look up'), a specific resource ('current authoritative decision'), a query mode ('natural-language'), and a temporal placement ('before an execution step'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_decision_changes (current vs changes) and whoami (identity).

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as a pre-execution lookup and instructs the agent not to act on a premise when the record refuses via premise_check.safe_to_proceed=false. It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusions directly, but the context is clear.

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