decode_decision_id

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), the description reveals how signatures work, that forgery/editing is detectable, and that authentication does not imply current correctness. This adds significant behavioral context and does not contradict the 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 four sentences, each earning its place: cost, purpose, mechanism, and caveat/alternative. It is front-loaded with 'FREE' and structured logically, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, rich annotations, and clear scope, the description is complete. It covers what it does, how it works, when to use it, what it does not do, and points to the correct sibling tool. No critical information appears missing.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, explaining its format. The description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the signature is from the payment wallet, which conveys why the decision_id is authenticatable. This enriches the parameter's meaning.

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 precisely states it decodes a decision_id and checks whether Permit Verdict actually issued it, using specific verbs and the resource. It also differentiates from the sibling verify_decision by explicitly stating it does NOT assess current correctness. This is a clear, specific purpose.

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 explains when to use it (for decision_ids shown by a counterparty or issued earlier) and explicitly directs users to verify_decision for checking validity. It also notes it costs nothing and needs no wallet, providing clear context for usage.

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