de_get_decision_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the internal mechanism (resolving the manifestation from the encoding array) and that it downloads the text. However, it doesn't disclose potential error conditions or that the 'format' parameter affects the downloaded content. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds relevant technical context without digression. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with high schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior. It explains how the text is fetched and that it resolves from encoding. Minor omissions like format handling are already in the schema, so the description is sufficient.

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%: both 'format' and 'document_number' have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides; it omits even mentioning the format param. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full text of a court decision'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like de_get_decision (metadata) and de_get_act (acts). It also adds a concrete detail about resolving the manifestation from the encoding array, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that de_get_decision returns metadata instead of text, nor does it suggest prerequisite steps like obtaining a document_number from a search tool. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name and schema.

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