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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it returns every fragment of the ruling in order, which tells the agent the result is a complete, ordered document rather than a snippet or summary. It doesn't cover failure behavior for an invalid jid.

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?

Two tight sentences: the operation and its return shape come first, the workflow relation to search_decisions second. No filler, no repetition of the annotations.

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, the description usefully characterizes the return value as the full ordered set of fragments. For a single-parameter, read-only lookup it is nearly complete; it omits only edge behavior such as what happens when the jid is unknown or the decision is unavailable.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete jid example, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces provenance ('as returned by search_decisions'), which is useful but duplicates the schema text rather than adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (full text of one Taiwan court decision) keyed by jid, and explicitly separates it from the sibling search tools by naming search_decisions as the discovery step. An agent can distinguish it from get_law_details and get_article_by_number without opening 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 clear sequencing guidance: use it to read a decision in full *after* search_decisions surfaces it. That is a concrete when-to-use condition. It does not mention when not to use it (e.g., batch retrieval or exact-match lookups via search_decisions_exact), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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