special_decc_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by noting the 'ctx' parameter is 'injected automatically' and explaining the 'type' response format options (JSON/XML/HTML). The 'Returns: Full decision text or error' is somewhat vague but acceptable.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clean and easy to parse, with 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: parameter meanings, response format options, and the return type. It also cross-references the sibling search tool for parameter values, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: tribunal (name), id (serial number), oc (override), and type (format). It even notes that ctx is auto-injected, which is beyond the schema and helps agents understand which parameters are user-supplied.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve special administrative appeal decision full text.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like special_decc_search (search) and decc_service (regular decisions), making it unambiguous.

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 context by specifying 'tribunal: same values as special_decc_search' and including response format options. It doesn't explicitly tell when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it state requirements like having an ID from a search first, but the context is clear enough for a retrieval tool.

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