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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the response is the complete public metadata set, while the PDF itself is gated behind payment – an important expectation about what the call will and will not yield.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads the payload contents, the second delivers the paywall caveat. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 carries the return-value burden and discharges it by enumerating the returned fields, including the payment link. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single id parameter is already documented with an example value sourced from list_decision_briefs, so the schema does the work. The description adds no format or origin detail about the id beyond what is structured.

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?

"Everything public about one brief" plus an enumeration of the returned fields (six decisions with evidence lines, pages, price, sample pages, license, payment link) is a specific resource-plus-content statement. It does not name a sibling, but the second sentence implicitly separates it from the purchase path (buy_decision_evidence) by noting the PDF requires payment.

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 implied: use it when you have a brief id and want its public details rather than the paid artifact. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no pointer to the alternative for obtaining the actual PDF, so the agent must infer the routing.

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