lv_dp_get_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get,' which implies read-only, but does not explicitly confirm safety, describe what is returned, or explain error handling for invalid references. This is a minimal gap for a simple get operation.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the input and action, but does not describe the return type, success/error behavior, or any prerequisites. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but not complete.

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 schema already provides full coverage of the parameter, including a clear example. The description's mention of 'reference number' aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic value beyond what is already documented.

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 clearly states the tool gets a specific DVI decision by reference number. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like lv_dp_search_decisions, which are for finding decisions, not retrieving a specific one.

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: use this tool when you have a specific decision reference number. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of search_decisions or get_guideline, nor any mention of alternatives.

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