sk_dp_get_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without elaborating on whether this is read-only, what happens if the reference is not found, or what the return value contains (e.g., full text vs. metadata). This lack of context is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and the key identifier type, followed by examples. There is no wasted wording, making it highly efficient and clear.

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 one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and parameter format. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance vs. siblings and does not describe the return value, which would be expected when no output schema exists. The description is adequate but not fully 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 description for the 'reference' parameter already provides the same examples given in the tool description, so the description adds no additional value beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the 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 clearly states the tool gets a specific ÚOOÚ SR decision by reference number, with concrete examples ('UOOU-2021-1234', '00946/2022'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_decisions (which presumably searches) and get_guideline (different resource).

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 usage when you have a specific reference number, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as pointing to sk_dp_search_decisions when the reference is unknown. The sibling names help, but the description itself offers no exclusions.

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