ie_comp_get_merger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that it retrieves a decision, without detailing any behavioral traits such as error handling, return format, or permissions. The 'Get' verb implies a read operation, but no additional context is provided.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the verb 'Get' and includes necessary examples. It is appropriately concise and readable.

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?

The tool is simple, with one parameter and no output schema. The description clearly states the purpose and parameter, making it sufficient for an agent to understand when to use it. However, it omits any detail about the response structure or potential errors, which is a minor gap.

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 already provides full coverage with the same example strings ('B1-35/21', 'B8-101/18'). The description's examples duplicate the schema, so no new parameter meaning is added.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'merger control decision' with the criteria 'by case number'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_mergers and get_decision, which have different purposes.

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 that this tool should be used when a specific case number is already known, but it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of using search tools first or differentiating from get_decision for non-merger decisions.

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