decisio_quick_decide

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It communicates the atomic single-call nature, the need for complete upfront input, and the immediate ranked output. It does not cover error handling or consistency checks, but for a computation tool these are minor gaps.

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 four short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, what to provide, when to use it, and what you get. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 5 required parameters but no output schema. The description adequately covers the operational context (single call, complete inputs), the use case, and the return value (ranked results). It is slightly vague about the exact output structure, but the schema documents inputs thoroughly.

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 already covers all parameters with examples and descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond restating the required inputs and emphasizing 'ALL pairwise comparisons,' which the schema already conveys.

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 opens with a clear verb and object ('Run a complete AHP analysis'), specifies the input requirements ('goal, criteria, options, ALL pairwise comparisons'), and differentiates itself from step-by-step siblings by emphasizing single-call execution and immediate ranked results.

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 explicitly states the primary use case ('Best for when you already know all the comparisons'), implying it should be avoided when comparisons are not fully known. It does not name specific alternative tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of a fully explicit when/when-not.

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