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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world traits, yet the description adds real behavioral context: it is free (no payment), returns a dated pending shape while the horizon is open, never infers an outcome, and raises a typed DECISION_NOT_FOUND refusal for unknown ids. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but the added disclosure is substantial.

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 point is front-loaded ('FREE resolution outcome ... by decision_id'), but the rest is one long run-on sentence dense with pipes, parentheticals, and jargon that is harder to parse than the payload warrants.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, yet the description helpfully characterizes the outcome shapes and pending state, and covers payment and error behavior. For a one-parameter read tool it is close to complete; only routing and pagination are absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry decision_id's meaning: it identifies a settled decision, is a UUID (matching the schema format), and unknown ids produce a typed DECISION_NOT_FOUND refusal. That compensates well for a single undocumented parameter.

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: fetch the resolution outcome for a decision_id, and spells out the possible outcome values (realized/obtains/not/unresolvable/pending). It is conceptually distinguishable from tollbridge_get_decision, but it never names a sibling tool, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied — call it to get the settled outcome of a decision — and it clarifies that outcomes are never inferred and that ids must be known. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative such as tollbridge_get_decision, leaving routing to inference.

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