get_decision_text

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds that the default 'full=false' provides step-wise abbreviation of the body while preserving certain sections. This adds behavioral context beyond 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and key features. However, it could be structured into separate lines for clarity.

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 complexity of 4 parameters with an enum and nested object, and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on response format, error handling, or availability. It does not fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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%, but the description enriches parameter meanings by explaining the default behavior of 'full' and providing concrete examples for the 'options' parameter (e.g., treaty, english_law). This significantly clarifies parameter usage.

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 explicitly states it is a comprehensive lookup across 18 domains, requiring domain and id, with a summarization option. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_law and get_law_text, which target different legal sources.

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 implies usage for retrieving decision texts by domain and ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_decisions. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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