get_decision_text

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

Discloses default behavior of the full parameter (stepwise abbreviation when false). Does not describe side effects, authorization needs, or error handling. Without annotations, more transparency would be needed for a 4.

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?

Very concise, two lines covering purpose and a key behavioral detail. Front-loaded with main function. Could be more structured but is efficient.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, it could describe return value or error behavior. The nested options parameter is complex but the description adds some domain-specific examples. Adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds context on default full behavior and domain-specific options, but does not significantly expand beyond the schema definitions.

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 it is an integrated full text query across 18 domains, specifying required inputs domain+id. It distinguishes from siblings like get_law_text which is for law text, but it does not explicitly contrast with other retrieval tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_decisions or get_annexes. Does not mention prerequisites, preconditions, or exclusions.

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