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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: the null return when no matching row in the hot tier, the configVersion stamping semantics (0 = unstamped), and the inclusion of all per-target attempts. This goes beyond what annotations provide and is highly transparent.

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 three sentences, each carrying distinct, valuable information: the core function, the configVersion field meaning, and null/retention behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (envelope + attempts with statuses), scoping, null behavior, and the configVersion field. It also references get_project for the retention window, giving the caller all necessary 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 input schema fully documents the sole parameter 'requestId' with a clear description (UUID from 202 responses or list_requests rows). The description adds no additional parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('one inbound request envelope'), and further details the included per-target attempts with their statuses. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_requests or get_dlq_entry by describing a unique, more comprehensive return payload.

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 useful context: it is scoped to the project and returns null if the request is outside the hot tier retention window, pointing to get_project for details. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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