it_case_get_decision

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operations, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the full text, but provides no additional context about edge cases like missing identifiers, result size, or precedence between ecli and anno+numero, offering minimal value beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and object, with zero redundant content. It earns a top score for efficiency.

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 read-only retrieval tool with a well-described schema, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, this description is complete. It specifies the decision type, the court, and the allowed identifiers, which is all that is needed for a competent agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including the relationship between anno, numero, and ecli. The description only restates 'by ECLI or year + number' without adding any new parameter-level details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'the full text of one Constitutional Court decision', which clearly distinguishes it from search and listing tools. It also specifies the two identification methods (ECLI or year+number), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'by ECLI or year + number' establishes a clear condition for use—when a specific decision identifier is available—but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like it_case_search for finding decisions by query, nor does it mention when not to use this tool. No exclusions are stated, only the positive context.

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