get_tax_tribunal_decision_text

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

The description provides no behavioral details such as output format, potential errors, or authentication requirements. The parameter descriptions in the schema partially compensate, but the description itself lacks transparency about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains only essential information. No wasted words.

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 covers the basic purpose but lacks details about output format, error handling, or prerequisites. Given no output schema, it would benefit from stating that it returns the full decision text. However, it is minimally sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 title and description clearly indicate the tool retrieves the full text of tax tribunal decisions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_tax_tribunal_decisions' (search) and other 'get_*_text' tools by specifying the resource as tax tribunal decisions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it does not state that it should be used after searching for a decision ID or that it is for retrieving detailed text rather than metadata.

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