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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses windowed text, continuation through text_window, window-scoped citations with outside-window counts, and occurrence rollups. It also explains that unresolved citations remain visible and warns to join on resolved_cause_num rather than the written number, preventing a subtle usage error.

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 compact, front-loads the purpose, and then organizes the important text-window and citation behaviors into short paragraphs. Each sentence supplies a useful operational detail without repetition or filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully covers the most important response semantics, while the input schema and annotations support correct invocation. It remains incomplete on the surrounding workflow, particularly where doc_id comes from and how this tool differs from nearby EDRSR retrieval tools.

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%, and the schema already explains doc_id, offset, section selection, max_chars, and include_html in detail. The description reinforces the windowing model but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond that structured documentation.

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 opening clearly identifies the resource and result: one court decision with its text, citations, and structural parts. It does not explicitly distinguish this retrieval tool from siblings such as ua_edrsr__search, ua_edrsr__lookup_case, or ua_edrsr__get_court_practice.

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?

Single-decision retrieval and paginated reading are implied by 'One decision' and the windowing guidance. There is no explicit workflow guidance on obtaining doc_id or when to use this tool instead of a search or case-lookup sibling.

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