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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower — yet the description adds real context beyond them: the exact failure semantics ('not_found' for unknown ids, ids past the retention window, and other projects' requests) and the `read` scope requirement. That is substantive behavioral disclosure an agent cannot get 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the detailed enumeration of returned fields. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause earns its place by naming what the record contains; the parenthetical field list is the only slightly heavy portion.

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, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (status, error_code/error_detail, attempts, engine/proxy details, blocking info, latency spans, credits) plus error and auth semantics. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 single `id` parameter is already documented as a ULID sourced from X-Request-Id or a list row. The description restates that sourcing rather than adding new format or validation detail, so the schema carries the weight and 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('full log record of one past API call by its request id'), and the singular scope ('one') cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling spicrawl_requests_list. An agent can route between list and get without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool's role: 'this is the tool for debugging a failed or slow scrape,' and tells the agent where to obtain the id (X-Request-Id header, error bodies, or a spicrawl_requests_list row). It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming a competing tool, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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