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

The description discloses far more than the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: per-caller visibility, 404 instead of permission error, resolved_by formatting differences between admins and non-admins, can_resolve/can_withdraw response fields, and a warning that this is a sensitive read whose contents should not be echoed. No contradiction with 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 long but dense: nearly every sentence earns its place by adding a behavioral constraint or clarifying a security-relevant detail. A few parentheticals repeat the same REST-route reference and could be tightened, which keeps it from a 5.

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 read-one-by-id tool with no output schema, the description covers all call-critical facts: access control, 404 hiding of existence, resolved_by behavior, returned capability flags, and sensitivity. Nothing material is missing.

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%, and the id parameter is already well documented with its areq_… format and provenance from list/create. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond saying the operation is keyed by id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a crisp verb+resource statement, 'Read one access request by id,' which clearly distinguishes it from access_request.list and the other access_request siblings. It further specifies per-caller visibility and return capabilities, eliminating ambiguity about what this tool does and what it returns.

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 gives concrete usage conditions: an admin with member:manage can read any request, a non-admin can only read their own, and anyone else gets a 404. It does not explicitly name the list/create siblings as alternatives or provide an explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it is not a perfect 5, but the context for when this tool applies is very clear.

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