Fetch the full text of Taiwan administrative decisions, appeals, rulings, and related legal documents by decision ID; returns a PDF link when scanned text cannot be extracted.
取得訴願決定書、處分書、審議判斷、裁決、保障決定、裁罰案件、監察院案文或律師懲戒決議的全文 （由官網 HTML 或 PDF 擷取；掃描檔無法擷取時回傳 PDF 連結）。
Args: decision_id: search_administrative_decisions 回傳的 id（如「ey:A-115-000633」）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the extraction source (official HTML or PDF) and a fallback behavior (scanned files that cannot be extracted return a PDF link). It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or other operational traits, so the disclosure is partial.
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?
Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a parenthetical on source/fallback, then a compact Args section. The enumeration of document types is slightly long but informative rather than wasteful.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, yet the description conveys what is returned (full text) and the edge-case return (PDF link for unextractable scans). Combined with the parameter provenance, this is nearly complete for a single-parameter fetch tool, with only auth/rate context missing.
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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is only titled 'Decision Id' in the schema. The description compensates well: it explains the parameter is the id returned by search_administrative_decisions and gives a concrete format example ('ey:A-115-000633'), adding semantics the schema lacks.
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 (取得/retrieve) and resource (the full text of administrative decisions), and enumerates the document types covered (appeal decisions, dispositions, review judgments, rulings, penalty cases, Control Yuan texts, attorney disciplinary resolutions). It is clearly the retrieval counterpart to search_administrative_decisions, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many other 'get_*' siblings.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: by tying decision_id to 'search_administrative_decisions 回傳的 id', it signals the search-then-fetch workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison against sibling retrieval tools like get_judgment or get_precedent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.