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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description does add genuine behavioral context by noting contacts are never included, warning the agent it will not receive full record detail, but says nothing about visibility rules for non-public requests (e.g., whether a missing id returns an error or empty).

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 short sentences with zero filler; the lookup purpose is front-loaded and the redaction caveat follows it. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only residual gap is that the shape of the returned request object is unstated, though an agent needs little more than the id to call it.

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 fully documented as a UUID with a validating pattern. The description only restates that lookup is by id, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Get one public request") and scopes it to a single item by id, which contrasts implicitly with the plural search_requests sibling. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but the singular-vs-search distinction is still legible.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the direct-lookup path once it already holds a request id. There is no explicit 'use this when / use search_requests instead' routing statement or note about prerequisite discovery steps.

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