lt_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' without detailing what is returned, what happens if the reference is not found, or whether any other behavior occurs. This leaves the agent uninformed about edge cases or response format.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get', and contains no extraneous information. Every word is purposeful, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate to convey the core function. However, it lacks context about the return value (e.g., full decision details) and does not mention how to handle missing references. Additionally, given the sibling search tool, a short note on when to use get vs search would improve completeness.

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% for the single 'reference' parameter, and its description includes an example format. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already provides adequate context, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a specific VDAI decision by reference number' clearly states the action (get), the resource (VDAI decision), and the method (by reference number). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lt_dp_search_decisions, which implies a search/filter process rather than exact lookup.

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 you should use this tool when you already have a specific reference number, but it does not explicitly contrast it with lt_dp_search_decisions or state when not to use it. There is no guidance on selecting between get and search tools, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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