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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds what data is returned (team replies, status changes, deployment details) and the behavior of the 'since' filter, going beyond annotations to explain actual output content. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a conditional usage note. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 operation, the description explains the returned content (full history) and the optional filter. No output schema exists, but the description suffices for correct usage. It omits error handling or auth requirements, which are likely covered by annotations or system context.

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 schema describes 'since' with a similar description, and 'request_id' is unnamed in the schema but obvious from the tool name. The description adds a practical usage example for 'since' but does not substantially expand on parameter semantics. With only 50% schema coverage, it partially compensates but leaves request_id unexplained.

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 specifies the verb 'get', the resource 'platform request', and adds 'full history' (team replies, status changes, deployment info) which distinguishes it from related tools like list_platform_requests or update_platform_request. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a conditional usage for the 'since' filter ('Pass since=<ISO timestamp> to get only the events after it') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_platform_requests. The name implies single vs. list, but no direct alternative guidance is given.

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