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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that each truth is returned with its CURRENT value (i.e., a live snapshot, not a historical record), which is meaningful context, but it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or scoping side effects beyond the schema. A 3 reflects some added value but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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 single dense, front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, return semantics, and the matching rule. No wasted words, though the em-dash aside slightly slows the read.

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 and 100% param coverage, the description needn't explain return values; it still adds useful conceptual framing about why upstream truths matter. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though sibling differentiation could be sharper.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the prefix-matching hint for 'decision'). The description's 'Match by decision title prefix' largely restates what the schema says, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: shows the ground truths (upstream dependencies) a decision rests on, and clarifies intent ('so you can tell whether the basis still holds'). The 'upstream' framing reasonably distinguishes it from wyrm_decision_downstream, but it does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings like wyrm_decided_because or wyrm_decision_trace.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: validating whether a decision's basis still holds via current values. It also gives a selection guide ('Match by decision title prefix'). However, it names no explicit alternative or exclusion condition, leaving the agent to infer when to prefer wyrm_decision_downstream or wyrm_decided_because.

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