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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does add real context: input normalization rules (spaces, case, separators, quotes, '№'), the prefix minimum length, the returned fields, and the limit range. It omits read-only/side-effect framing and whether results are paginated or truncated beyond the limit, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A compact single block with the core action front-loaded, followed by normalization, prefix mode, return fields, and limit bounds in a logical order. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical normalization list is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns (metadata, court, date, type, category, registry link), input normalization, prefix behavior, and limit bounds. Remaining gaps are secondary, such as ordering of results, pagination beyond the limit, and behavior on no match.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: prefix is explained as start-of-number matching with a 2-character minimum, limit is bounded to 1..200 with a default of 50, and case_number gets concrete normalization semantics absent from the schema. Only the exact behavior of prefix=false borderline cases and any match-failure behavior remain unstated.

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: retrieve all decisions ('Усі рішення') for a given case number, with the scope of the lookup described precisely. It does not name or differentiate against siblings like search_decisions, so an agent must infer that this is the exact-case-number lookup path.

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 usage model clear through its normalization and prefix semantics: exact number lookup by default, prefix mode for partial numbers with a minimum of 2 characters. It gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus search_decisions or get_decision, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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