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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so "Read only" at the end is largely a restatement. The genuinely additive content is domain behavior — that a decision is watched for 7 days and may have been undone, and that an approval link accompanies it — but no error or not-found behavior is disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and identifier, which is good, but it is a single run-on sentence built from a long parenthetical list of returned fields that a structured output schema already covers. Some of that enumeration could be trimmed without loss.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with a full output schema, the description gives enough to select and invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is small: it does not say whether not-found or undone decisions return an error versus a record, and it does not route the agent to list_decisions to obtain ids.

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%, with the id parameter already documented as "the decision's id or its number, e.g. '#12'" and language documented with its default. The description repeats the id/#number idea without adding format tolerance rules or explaining when to override the language default, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: fetches one decision (a change Taseli prepared or made) addressed by id or #number. It further enumerates the content shape (what changes from what to what, why, worth, risk, decider, run time, 7-day watch, undone status, approval link), which makes clear this is the singular detail view as opposed to a listing.

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?

Tells the agent where the identifier comes from ("as listed in Taseli or from a link"), so the retrieval path is clear. It does not explicitly name list_decisions as the way to enumerate ids, nor state what to do if the id is unknown, so the when-not case is only implied.

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