it_ga_get_decision

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the meaningful trait 'live' (no caching) and 'full text' (complete document content), which goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 that communicates the essential purpose without any filler. Every word adds meaning.

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?

With one parameter, a detailed schema description, an output schema present, and comprehensive annotations, the description sufficiently covers what is needed to select and invoke the tool. The 'live' and 'one decision' details round out the behavioral context.

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 already provides excellent detail, including the exact format and provenance from it_ga_search. The description reinforces this by specifying 'by its document URL', adding a small but useful link to the workflow.

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 identifies the action (fetch), the resource (full text of one administrative decision), and the key qualifier (live, by document URL). It distinguishes this from sibling search and get tools by referencing the URL from it_ga_search.

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 parameter description explains that the input is a verbatim document_url from an it_ga_search hit, making the intended workflow clear. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of a search-then-fetch flow is well implied.

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