Get a proposal or canonical decision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read only: this tool never mutates any state,' and adds behavioral context by specifying possible return record_type values, including 'not_found'. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three terse, front-loaded sentences cover the core action, return values, read-only behavior, and the key alternative. Every sentence earns its place and no filler exists.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, that it is safe, and when to use a sibling instead. There are no meaningful gaps.

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% and the single parameter record_id is fully described as 'Stable proposal id or canonical decision id to retrieve exactly.' The description adds little beyond saying 'stable id,' so it does not meaningfully improve on the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one record by stable id.' It also explicitly lists possible record_type values, which clarifies exactly what the tool returns. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like decision.search and decision.propose.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: use this tool when you already have a stable id, and use decision.search when you do not. This directly routes the agent to the correct sibling tool, leaving no ambiguity.

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