Get a decision

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by spelling out the returned facets and the conditional approval state when a decision was parked, though it does not mention failure behavior such as an unknown or inaccessible decision ID.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that states the operation and then efficiently enumerates the relevant return facets. Every clause contributes useful information without filler.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does substantial work by explaining what the returned decision contains, including the conditional approval state. It could be more complete by noting behavior when the decision ID is not found, but the core reading contract is covered.

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%, with decisionId documented as 'The decision (dec_…)'. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Read one decision of this agent' — and enumerates the returned facets (verdict, rule evaluations, signing outcome, venue acknowledgement, approval state). It distinguishes well from list_decisions by emphasizing a single decision, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from wait_for_decision or get_venue_rules.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should use this when it already has a decision ID and wants the full record. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no direction such as using list_decisions to find an ID or wait_for_decision to block until one exists.

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