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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that it is a read operation. Beyond annotations, the description details the return structure (structured text, law-tags, provenance, section_heading, section_text), which is valuable behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently covers parameter behavior and output details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields (structured text, tags, provenance, etc.). However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or prerequisites, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'id' format, 'paragraphs' for numbered chunks with inherited tags, and 'statutes' to include law text. This is thorough and actionable.

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 retrieves a single decision with a specific stable ID format (e.g., HR-2024-123-A or Rt-1979-524). It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_decisions which are for searching, not retrieving a specific decision.

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 implies usage when the user has a stable decision ID, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The ID format is specified, which helps, but alternatives are not mentioned.

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