de_get_decision

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

Annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, not destructive. Description adds that it fetches 'metadata' (not the full text) and specifies the source system 'NeuRIS'. This adds marginal value beyond annotations, but doesn't disclose details like whether the metadata is always available or if there are constraints.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that uses active voice and conveys the essential information without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 the presence of an output schema (which documents return values) and clear parameter schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, it could provide a bit more context on what specific metadata fields are included or how the document_number relates to other tools, but the output schema compensates.

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 parameter description is clear and includes an example format. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('court-decision metadata'), and the key qualifier ('by document number' from 'NeuRIS'). This distinguishes it from siblings like de_get_decision_text (which presumably fetches the full text) and search tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implicit but not stated that one should use this when they have a specific document number and need metadata, rather than searching. Sibling names hint at alternatives but description doesn't clarify.

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