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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the exact result contents for each decision type and its role in supplying ids to respond_to_decision. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 two tight sentences: the first front-loads the core read operation and result types, and the second adds the cross-tool dependency. Every clause provides useful selection or interpretation context without repetition.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value context by naming the result contents for each decision category. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly and understand what it will receive.

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?

There is one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting that decision_id accepts either an id or a SettleIt link. The description does not add parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: “Read a decision and its current results.” It goes further by enumerating the result shape for polls, rankings, check-ins, and availability, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema. It also distinguishes the read operation from the write-oriented sibling respond_to_decision by noting that it returns ids needed for responding.

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 makes the usage context clear: read a decision and its current results, and use the returned option or slot ids before calling respond_to_decision. It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or mention the other lifecycle siblings, but the read-only purpose is evident.

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