it_dp_get_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it discloses almost nothing behavioral. It does not say whether the call fails or returns empty on an unknown reference, whether access is restricted, or what kind of content comes back. 'Get' implies a safe read, but that is left to inference.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the identifier convention appended as examples. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be re-read.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the result (what a 'decision' comprises) and the failure mode for a bad reference. For a single-parameter read tool the gap is modest, but an agent still lacks enough to handle the not-found case.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value on top by supplying concrete reference-number formats ('GPDP-2021-001', 'GARANTE-2022-CL'), which helps the agent construct a valid value rather than just knowing the field exists.

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+resource ('Get a specific Garante decision') and the exact key used to identify it ('by reference number'). The 'get by reference' framing inherently contrasts with the sibling search tool (it_dp_search_decisions), so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing: call this when you already hold a reference number rather than when you need to discover one. However, the description never explicitly routes to it_dp_search_decisions for lookup, nor says what to do when the reference is unknown or invalid.

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