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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses important traits: unpaid requests return HTTP 402, a valid X-PAYMENT makes the same URL return JSON, and different query modes correspond to different prices and chunks. This goes beyond a simple 'GET decisions' statement, although it does not address rate limits or more detailed response behavior.

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 dense and information-rich, but it is not front-loaded with a clear purpose statement; it begins with the URL, price, and payment address. Phrases like 'Not a new SKU' and 'Same door, not a new SKU' are repetitive and add jargon without much structural benefit.

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?

Given five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: payment requirements, 402 behavior, JSON response after payment, chunking semantics, and parameter-specific costs. It does not describe the JSON structure, but without an output schema the description still provides enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already 100%, but the description adds meaningful operational detail: id costs $0.02, before/since cost $0.05, page is ignored when since/before is set, empty new sets return 304 or recordCount 0, and x_payment is forwarded as a header. This is a strong enhancement over the schema alone.

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 identifies the resource as 'IBLA precedential decision text' and states it is accessed via GET, so an agent can tell it is a retrieval tool for IBLA decisions. It is not as clean as a declarative 'retrieves IBLA decisions', and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling decision tools, but the URL, resource, and parameter semantics make the core purpose recognizable.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling decision tools such as ecab-decisions or nlrb-decisions. The description gives operational context for plain GET, ?before, and ?since, but these are parameter behaviors, not tool-selection guidance. 'Not a new SKU' hints at product boundaries but does not name alternatives or conditions.

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