get_customer_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists what the tool returns (status, reporter, field values) but fails to mention that it is a read-only operation, any authorization requirements, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an Args section. Every sentence is informative, and the key information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 complexity (1 parameter, output schema present), the description adequately covers the core functionality. It mentions the returned fields (status, reporter, field values). Could optionally mention that it returns a single request object, but not necessary since output schema exists.

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 parameter 'issue_id_or_key' is described with a format example (e.g., 'X000') and explanation (issue key or numeric ID). This adds significant value beyond the schema, which only specifies type string with no description. The description also hints at the expected format.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get full details of a customer request including status, reporter, and field values.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_customer_request_status, which only returns status.

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?

No explicit guidelines for when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_customer_request_status). The usage is implied by the purpose, but no exclusions or comparative context are provided.

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