recent_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: ordering ('newest last') and the privacy guarantee that 'the checked text is never included' — an important disclosure about what is withheld. It says nothing, however, about truncation, pagination, or how the limit interacts with ordering.

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?

One tight sentence with the ordering constraint front-loaded and the privacy caveat in a second short clause; nothing is wasted. The field enumeration is long, but it is the substantive payload of the sentence rather than 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 read-only tool with an output schema and explicit annotations, most of what an agent needs is present: what it returns, in what order, and what is excluded. The gaps are the unexplained limit parameter and the absence of any note on result truncation or how to reach older decisions.

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 0% and the single 'limit' parameter (default 20) is never explained — whether it caps the number of decisions returned, whether results are truncated silently, and what the maximum is remain unknown. With zero schema documentation, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 names the resource precisely ('the latest governance decisions') and enumerates what each record contains (source, verdict, data kinds, classifier flag, timing), which clearly separates it from siblings like decision_matrix or governance_status. The verb is only implicit — it reads as a noun phrase rather than 'List/Return' — but an agent can still tell what it retrieves.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this instead of governance_status for a summary or decision_matrix for aggregate views, and no conditions or prerequisites are stated. The word 'recent' implies a recency-scoped read, but that is inference, not guidance.

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