get_decision_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return content detail (inputs and answer rows), which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't disclose any error behavior or pagination, but for a simple get-by-identifier operation, this is acceptable. The description is consistent with the read-only hint.

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, compact sentence that states the verb, resource, included content, and lookup key. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 get tool with one fully-documented parameter and annotations covering read-only and open-world behavior, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is returned (inputs and answer rows) and how to identify the record. There is no output schema, but the description adequately conveys the expected result. Nothing essential is missing.

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 covers 100% of the parameter, describing it as 'Decision table name or sys_id'. The description repeats this same information ('by name or sys_id') without adding new semantics like format, validation rules, or behavior. Since schema coverage is high, 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 clearly states the action (Get), the resource (decision table), and the scope (includes inputs and answer rows). It also specifies the lookup key (name or sys_id), which differentiates it from siblings like list_decision_tables (which lists tables) and create_decision_table (which creates). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and when to use it.

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: it is for retrieving a specific decision table when you have a name or sys_id. This is clear context, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools like list_decision_tables. It doesn't provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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