rii:get_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but adds some value by disclosing the Markdown return format and metadata fields (court, date, file number, ECLI). However, it does not mention the behavior of the optional save_path parameter (metadata-only return) or the existence of a summary mode (part=K), leaving these to the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output format, and includes a focused usage tip. No superfluous content.

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?

The description provides the core purpose and output format, and the schema covers parameter details. It is fairly complete for a retrieval tool, though it could mention the relationship with search tools, but the sibling list implicitly suggests that. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description's mention of Markdown and metadata.

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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions and examples, so the baseline is 3. The description's note about source BY format is redundant with the schema's doc_id example, adding no new meaning beyond what is already structured.

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 retrieves the full text of a court decision by doc ID, using a specific verb and resource. The mention of court decisions and source BY differentiates it from sibling get tools like arxiv:get or dip:get.

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 guidance on using source 'BY' for IDs from gesetze-bayern.de, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like ris:get or how it fits into a search-then-get workflow. The advice is parameter-specific rather than tool-selection-specific.

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