acedatacloud_get_access_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does communicate an important constraint: only 'caller-visible' access requests can be retrieved. However, it does not mention error behavior, authorization requirements, or what happens when a request is not found or not visible.

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 a single sentence with no filler or repeated information. It is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-id tool.

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 getter with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The specific caller-visible scoping is a useful context addition. It loses a point only because it does not explain the relationship to listing access requests or failure behavior.

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%: request_id is already documented as 'Access request UUID' and is required. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Get one caller-visible access request' uses a specific verb with a specific resource and singular scope. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_access_requests, create_access_request, and cancel_access_request by focusing on a single request retrieval.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: the tool is for fetching a single access request using the request_id. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or that list_access_requests should be used to discover request IDs first.

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