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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that the response includes the function's typed inputs — but says nothing about what happens when the id is unknown or how large the payload can get. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the verb 'Reads'. The phrasing 'a request that runs per row' is slightly jargon-heavy compared with the tool name but costs little space.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is fetched. It is still missing how to source function_id and any notion of the shape or cost of the returned 'typed inputs', which an agent would want before calling.

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 0% for the single function_id parameter, so the description must compensate but does not: it never mentions the id, its expected format, or where to obtain it. Since there is only one required parameter and its name is self-describing, this is a minor rather than crippling gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('a saved request that runs per row'), and adds that typed inputs are returned with it. It is clear enough to distinguish a single-read from the plural sibling list_investigation_functions, though it never uses the term 'investigation function' from the tool name, leaving the link to get_investigation_inputs and get_investigation_parameters implicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_investigation_functions, create_investigation_function, get_investigation_inputs, or get_investigation_parameters. No prerequisites or context for the required identifier are given, so the agent must infer that this is a by-id lookup.

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