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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses several important behaviors: the unified shape across protocols, the handling of non-JSON values as strings, the truncation of very large batches to 5,000 series, and the `newer`/`older` navigation fields. This is substantial behavioral context beyond what a schema would provide. It doesn't mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the described behaviors are rich and useful.

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 but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then explaining the unified shape, edge cases, and navigation. Every sentence earns its place, though the length is substantial. It is not overly verbose given the complexity of the tool's behavior, and the structure is logical.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple protocols, unified shape, edge cases, truncation, navigation), the description is quite complete. It explains the return shape, edge cases, and navigation fields. It doesn't have an output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly. Minor gaps include not explaining the `resources` array structure in detail, but the overall context is strong.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about the batch id being from the history list and the collector enum values, but it doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description's added context is marginal.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it decodes one received batch into a unified shape of series or NCPA checks. It names the specific resource (a received batch) and the verb (get/decode), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_device_input_history and get_device_input_setup. The description is detailed and specific, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explains the context of use: it operates on a batch from the history list, and mentions the `newer`/`older` neighboring batch ids for moving through history. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer it is the tool for retrieving a specific decoded batch. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing, but the context is strong.

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