fr_get_decision

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns the native ECLI and uses the Legifrance consult/juri endpoint, which provides some additional behavioral context beyond the 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 reasonably concise, with the main action in the first sentence and the rest used to explain the id format variants. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words.

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 single parameter, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers purpose, id formats, and relationship to siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%. The input schema's description of decision_id already explains the id formats. The tool description reinforces these formats but does not add new semantic information beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool consults a court decision by its id and returns the native ECLI. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying three jurisdictions with distinct id prefixes (JURITEXT, CONSTEXT, CETATEXT).

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 context on when to use the tool (when you have a decision id from fr_search with specific fonds) and implicitly differentiates from siblings by listing id formats. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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