si_comp_get_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the core function and does not mention permissions, error handling, response format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe and effective agent decision-making.

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 with an example. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. While it could benefit from more detail, it remains appropriately concise without verbosity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the returned decision object. It also lacks behavioral or usage context, making it incomplete for a tool with one critical input and no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It provides an example case number format, but this is already implied by the schema description. Baseline moderate score 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 retrieves a specific AVK decision by case number and provides an example format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like si_comp_search_decisions (which searches) and si_comp_get_merger (which gets mergers), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives, such as si_comp_search_decisions. No explicit context for usage or exclusion is given, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the name and sibling list.

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