get_pipc_decision_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: extraction of structured fields, auto-extraction of annex links, and automatic summarization of long text. It does not mention side effects or authentication requirements, but the disclosed behaviors are sufficient for safe use.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by details on extracted fields and usage guidance. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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 tool's purpose, return types (structured fields), input source, and related tools. Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing expected fields. It is complete enough for a single-parameter 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The main description adds value by stating that the id comes from search_pipc_decisions results, providing crucial context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full PIPC decision text from the legal service, extracts structured fields like case name, summary, order, reasoning, and background, and automatically extracts annex links. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_pipc_decisions (for searching) and get_law_text (for laws).

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: after searching with search_pipc_decisions to get detailed text, and for comparing with law text via get_law_text. It provides a clear next-step context, effectively guiding the agent on tool selection.

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