Show the matrix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered externally. The description only recites the returned content, which the output schema largely carries, adding little behavioral context beyond that (e.g. no size/pagination or freshness info).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the colon-prefixed enumeration of contents is efficient. Nothing is wasted, though the long list pushes it slightly past minimal.

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 a complete output schema, full annotation coverage, and a single documented required parameter, the definition gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly. The only missing piece is routing guidance against siblings such as analyze or what_if.

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, so the schema already fully documents decision_id including its origin and format. The description adds nothing about the parameter, matching the baseline for schema-covered params.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('the full decision matrix') and enumerates the payload contents (raw/effective/weighted scores, totals, rationale, missing cells). It is clearly distinct from siblings like score_option or start_decision, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with analyze or what_if, which could plausibly be confused with it.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites stated in the description, and no named alternatives. The only hint of context is in the schema's decision_id description (from start_decision), which is structured data rather than description text.

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