explain_decision

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description reinforces read-only behavior and details the return object fields, including that path_snapshot may be null. It could mention error handling for invalid decision_id, but overall adds useful context beyond annotations.

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 well-organized: purpose, usage guidance, parameter details, return object. Every sentence is necessary and concise without redundancy.

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?

Given a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, how to construct the argument, and what the response contains. It also includes a behavioral note about rendering transcript_markdown.

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% and the description reiterates the parameter format. It adds value by specifying the exact origin of the decision_id from the 'decisions' tool, which is meaningful beyond the schema alone.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full reasoning behind one committee verdict' and details the output components (transcript, memo, path snapshot). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on a single decision's comprehensive reasoning.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user asks "why was today's verdict HOLD" or wants to audit a past decision.' Also provides the specific source of the decision_id from the 'decisions' tool and marks the operation as read-only.

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