legitify.get_pending_request_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. 'Fetch' implies a read operation and 'full details ... including evidence' clarifies expected response content, but the description does not address authorization, errors, or behavior if the request is not pending. This is minimally adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains all key information: what is fetched, the scope ('pending'), the lookup method ('by id'), and an important content detail ('including evidence'). No filler or redundancy.

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 operation with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the resource, the identifier parameter, and a notable part of the return payload. Slightly more context about response shape or non-pending behavior would make it fully complete.

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 0% and the description only says 'by id', which maps to attestation_request_id. This adds the core semantic that the parameter is the identifier of the pending request, but it does not elaborate on format, ownership, or where the id comes from.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('full details for a pending request'), and a lookup key ('by id'), while also calling out ('including evidence'). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_pending_requests and get_attestation_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?

The phrase 'pending request by id' gives clear context: use this tool when you need full details and evidence for a specific pending request. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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