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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context: the returned fields, that internal notes and linkedTaskIds are gated behind the `View Internal Data` permission, and the required `feedback:requests:read` API-key scope. That permission-conditional field population is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the identifier requirement and followed by return contents and permission caveats; there is no filler and each sentence contributes new information.

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?

With no output schema, naming the returned fields is valuable and the permission/scope notes cover the main surprises. A minor gap remains around error behavior for unknown or inaccessible short IDs, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (account, shortId, workspace) are already documented. The description's only parameter-related addition is the "FR-42" example, which the schema already carries, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a feature request") plus the identifier type (short ID such as "FR-42"), which cleanly separates it from fr_list_requests and from the bug counterpart fr_get_bug.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the single-record lookup tool when it already has a short ID. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over fr_list_requests or when the ID is unknown, and no guidance on what happens when the request does not exist.

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