Request detail

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

Annotations already cover read-only behavior; the description adds value by revealing that responses are not truncated and that all nested request artifacts are included. It does not discuss error cases or rate limits, but for a simple read-only detail tool this is acceptable.

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 front-load the core behavior and add a usage trigger with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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, read-only detail tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, that nothing is truncated, and when to call it. The schema covers the id source, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 input schema already documents the id parameter at 100% coverage, including valid sources for the value. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 states exactly what the tool returns ('One request in full') and enumerates the contents (headers, payload, response body, logs, queries, exceptions, outgoing calls), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list/aggregation tools. 'Nothing is truncated' further defines the scope.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: use it after a list tool has narrowed the search to a single request. It does not name the alternative list tools or specify when not to use it, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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