decision_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does flag one important trait — the result is not verified human consent — but leaves unstated whether the call is read-only, what it returns when the ID is unknown, and where a "shared decision ID" originates.

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 short sentences with no filler: the retrieval scope comes first and the trust caveat second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 one-parameter read tool the description covers the essentials and adds a safety caveat, but with no output schema it is thin on what the response shape actually is (what a "reported record reference" looks like) and on failure behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the single decision_id parameter is undocumented in the schema, and the description only adds that it refers to a shared decision. It does not say the expected format or how to obtain the ID, so compensation is partial.

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 ("Find") and names the returned artifacts: messages and reported record references tied to a shared decision ID. This disambiguates the vague name "decision_status," but it never contrasts itself with close siblings such as message_status or inbox, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 line "check the original decision before acting" functions as a when-not-to-trust-this-output warning, which is real guidance. However, there is no positive when-to-use statement and no named alternative among the siblings for retrieving decision or message state.

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