get_recent_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that results are sorted chronologically and filterable, which is beyond annotations. But it omits details like pagination (though a limit parameter exists) or the structure of returned data.

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 very concise with two sentences, no redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides use-case and filtering options. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate use-case from parameters.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers core functionality and use-case. However, it lacks details on result format, pagination behavior, and how it differs from similar search tools, which may leave some gaps.

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 describes each parameter (e.g., 'Kanton filtern') with enumerations and defaults. The description only restates that filters are available, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage in the tool definition, but full descriptions in the schema itself, the baseline is 3.

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 it returns the newest court decisions and includes a use-case for tracking legal developments. It implies a difference from sibling tools like search_court_decisions by focusing on recent, chronologically sorted results, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 provides a use-case ('aktuelle Rechtsprechungsentwicklungen verfolgen') and mentions filtering options, which helps understand when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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