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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the result set is capped at 54 items in fixed groups of six, and each item exposes only a summary evidence line rather than the paid full evidence — critical context for an agent deciding whether to list or buy. Pagination and exact return shape remain unexplained.

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, no filler: the first defines the payload and its fields, the second hands off to the purchase tool. The handoff instruction is placed after the payload description, which is the right order for an agent scanning for what it gets first.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description must explain the return payload, which it does at the field level. The gap is narrow: it does not say whether all 54 decisions are returned in one call or how the six-per-brief grouping is represented structurally.

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 both optional parameters are already documented as keyword and brief filters. The description adds no extra syntax, matching rules, or interaction between query and brief_id, so it does not exceed the baseline that a fully documented schema sets.

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 names a specific resource (the 54 decisions, six per brief) and enumerates what each row carries: owner, contester, and the public evidence line. This is clearly distinct from list_decision_briefs (briefs) and get_decision_evidence (full evidence), so an agent can tell the siblings apart without opening a schema.

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?

It gives concrete downstream routing: take an id from here and pass it to buy_decision_evidence to purchase that decision's full evidence. It does not say when to prefer get_decision_brief or list_decision_briefs first, so the guidance is one-directional rather than complete.

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