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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/no-open-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a return-shape behavior not in any annotation or schema: the full ruling is returned as 'every fragment of that ruling in order', and it notes the citation-based lookup path. Pagination and size limits for very long rulings are not addressed, keeping this just short of 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource in the first clause, followed by return behavior, then usage routing. Three sentences, all carrying information, though the Constitutional Court / 釋字 sentence is a slight digression that could be tightened.

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 and only two parameters, the description is complete enough for an agent to call correctly: it covers the identifier source, the return composition, and the citation-based alternative. It stops short of addressing behavior for very large decisions or partial availability of the optional English text.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: it shows that jid is not only the opaque identifier from search results but can also be a citation form (e.g. 111年憲判字第8號 or 釋字第748號), which the schema does not state, and it reinforces the lang parameter's scope by noting ordinary decisions and judgments ignore it.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: 'Fetch the full text of one Taiwan court decision by its jid', with an explicit contrast to the sibling tools that produce the jid (search_decisions, search_decisions_exact, search_grand_chamber_decisions). An agent can distinguish this retrieval-by-id tool from the search tools without inspecting any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('read a decision in full after a search surfaces it') and a named fallback path ('To find a decision from its citation, search for the citation with search_decisions first'), plus an extra entry condition for Constitutional Court judgments and 釋字 interpretations. Alternatives and conditions are spelled out rather than implied.

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