replay_decision

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does solid work: it declares read-only/non-executing semantics, names the three required environment settings, specifies that the tenant comes from configuration and never from an argument, and enumerates OK/REFUSED/UNAVAILABLE including that errors and missing settings never yield fabricated data. It omits latency, cost, and any notion of what a successful replay actually produces beyond status.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. But the non-execution claim is restated three times ('it replays records; it executes nothing', 'it writes, signs and executes nothing', 'never made-up data'), padding a short description with defensive 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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not strictly required, yet the description does cover the status semantics and prerequisites well. The critical hole is the nested request object: for a tool whose only argument is an opaque object, saying nothing about its contents leaves an agent unable to construct a valid call.

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 single 'request' parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties true and 0% schema description coverage, so the schema tells the agent nothing. The description only hints that it carries 'the records you supply' and warns the tenant must not appear in it; the required shape and fields of the request object remain entirely undocumented.

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 and resource: replay a decision's evidence path over records supplied. It implicitly separates itself from mutating siblings by insisting it 'executes nothing' and 'writes, signs and executes nothing'. It never names an alternative such as get_decision_evidence or verify_receipt, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 rather than stated: this is the read-only replay path as opposed to gate_decision or mint_action_receipt, and the closing line warns the output is not a compliance finding. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use sibling Y when Z', and no guidance on when replay is warranted versus simply reading evidence.

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