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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive public endpoint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: newest-first ordering, aggregate totals before individual decisions, returned fields, pagination, and natural-language source preservation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and decision types, then output details, then a usage example. It is somewhat long and repeats the decision-type list already present in the schema, but the structure remains clear and largely earns its length.

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 appropriately explains what is returned: totals, individual decisions, statuses, review stages, references, RTO status, and links. It also covers ordering, public access, source preservation, and pagination, leaving only minor parameter-level detail to the schema.

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 moderate at 67%, with enum descriptions for type and locale already doing meaningful work. The description repeats the type choices and mentions overturned review outcomes, but it does not add syntax or filtering semantics for page, pageSize, since, or excludeOverturned beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: regulatory decisions of one type across all Australian RTOs. It enumerates the decision types and gives a concrete example question, making it easy to distinguish from sibling RTO lookup tools such as get_rto or search_rtos.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for questions like 'which colleges had their registration cancelled recently' and explains the default decision type. It does not explicitly say when to use sibling tools instead, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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