get_service_request

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the return fields (agency, problem type, status, timestamp, address), indicating it is a read operation. It does not mention error cases or limitations, but for a simple lookup, this is sufficiently 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 a single sentence of 17 words that immediately states the action and resource, followed by the input format and output fields. Every word contributes useful information; no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers what, how, and what to expect. It could mention authentication or pagination but those are unnecessary for a single-lookup tool.

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%, so the parameter is already documented. The description adds value by specifying the exact format ('311-XXXXXXXX'), which is more helpful than just the schema description. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 ('look up one 311 service request') and the resource ('by its number'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_service_request_list' which lists multiple requests. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 states the input format and what the tool returns. It implicitly differentiates from siblings (single vs list), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Some guidance is provided through context.

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