de_get_decision

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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). The description adds that this returns metadata rather than full text, which is useful context. It does not disclose anything further like pagination or missing-document behavior, but the annotations lower the burden and the metadata-vs-text distinction adds genuine value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core purpose and identifier are stated immediately.

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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, this is largely complete. The main gap is that with 13 siblings, an explicit pointer distinguishing this from de_get_decision_text and the search tools would strengthen it, but the 'metadata' qualifier already does most of that work.

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% — document_number is fully described with an example ('KARE600069049'). The description merely reinforces 'by document number' without adding format or validation details, so it stays at the baseline for a fully-covered schema.

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 ('Fetch'), resource ('court-decision metadata'), source system ('NeuRIS'), and lookup key ('by document number'). The 'metadata' qualifier cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling de_get_decision_text, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 conveys it is the metadata-lookup path for a document number, which implicitly contrasts with text retrieval tools. However, it never names an alternative or states when not to use it, and there are many siblings (de_get_decision_text, de_search, de_case_search) that could be confused with it. No explicit routing guidance is given.

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