acme_recent_decisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the content (approved/rejected, by whom, notes), implying a read-only lookup, but says nothing about the time window covered, how many decisions are returned, ordering, or truncation — meaningful gaps for a no-parameter query.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first defines the payload, the second gives the action guidance, with the content description front-loaded. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 zero-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description does the important work of sketching the returned fields. It is nearly complete; only the scope of 'recent' (time window/volume) and the read-only nature are left implicit.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a zero-param schema is 4. The description correctly adds no misleading argument detail.

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 resource — decisions (approved/rejected, decider, notes) about the caller's earlier requests — which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling acme_check_approval, which plausibly covers overlapping territory.

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?

It provides a clear trigger condition: 'Check it before retrying something, and follow the notes.' That tells the agent when to call it. No alternative tool is named or excluded, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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