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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world). The description goes well beyond that, disclosing return-shape quirks: answers keyed by field key, `display` in readable text, signature answers truncated to a marker, file answers carrying a download `url`, and the `next` polling signal. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot supply.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and return contents, then tacks on the read-only note and the id-lookup pointer. Dense but every clause carries information; only the mid-sentence em-dash parentheticals make it slightly awkward to scan.

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 carries the full burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly, including the `next` control field and the special cases for signature and file answers. An agent has everything needed to call and consume this correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully described in the schema ('Request ID, copied from a request_create or request_list response'). The description only reiterates id discovery via request_list, so it adds little beyond the schema — 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get one request') and enumerates exactly what is returned — status, recipient, prefill/context, link, timeline, answers, display. It explicitly routes the agent to request_list for id lookup, distinguishing it from its closest sibling.

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?

Gives clear context: read-only, use request_list to find ids, and consume the `next` field to decide whether to keep polling or read answers. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming all alternatives, but the operating conditions are well specified.

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