rii_get_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does disclose the response form: 'Returns decision in Markdown format with metadata (court, date, file number, ECLI).' It also communicates the source-specific ID format. It does not cover error behavior or the save_path mode, but the retrieval action and return format are sufficiently transparent.

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 short sentences and front-loads the main action and output before adding the source-specific note. Every clause earns its place and no information is repeated from the schema.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation path and the source parameter nuance. The remaining parameters are fully documented in the input schema, so the description is largely complete; only error and edge-case behavior is omitted.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real semantic mapping beyond the schema: BY-source IDs come from gesetze-bayern.de and use the Y-300-Z-... format. This external context helps an agent construct correct IDs. Other parameters do not need further elaboration because the schema already documents them.

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 opens with a specific verb, resource, and lookup key: 'Retrieve full text of a court decision by doc ID.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling search tools by framing it as a retrieval action keyed on an ID, and it states the expected output format.

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 only explicit usage guidance is 'Use source "BY" for IDs from gesetze-bayern.de (format: Y-300-Z-...),' which helps select a parameter value but not choose this tool over alternatives. It implies the tool is used when a doc ID already exists, but it never states that rii_search should be used first or when not to use this tool.

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