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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description builds on this with crucial behavioral details: rn is null when the court printed no numbers, anchor_basis must equal 'native_numbering' for a reliable pin-cite, and amtliche_seite is always null because page breaks are absent. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent paragraph earns its place with necessary caveats about citation integrity, page numbers, and pagination. There is no redundant or filler language.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description responsibly explains the key return fields and their reliability implications, which is essential for correct citation usage. It doesn't enumerate every possible paragraph field or error behavior, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 case parameter is well described in the schema, and the description adds pagination purpose for offset/limit. However, with only 33% schema coverage, the description mostly explains output fields (rn, anchor_basis, amtliche_seite) rather than adding deeper meaning to the input parameters, leaving limit/offset semantics mostly inferred from names and defaults.

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: it returns the full text of one decision split into citeable paragraphs. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like listCitedAuthorities and listCitingDecisions, which handle citation relationships rather than paragraph-level full text.

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 description makes the use case clear: retrieve paragraph-level text for a single decision, with pagination advice for long decisions. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the return content is specific enough that an agent can identify when this tool is appropriate.

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