get_review_request

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the ID is not found, any rate limits, or prerequisites). Since annotations carry the transparency burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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, 8 words, and front-loads the core action ('Get one review request'). Every word is necessary and there is no fluff 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 get-by-id tool, the combination of a clear description, complete schema descriptions, rich annotations, and an output schema is largely sufficient. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance about when to favor this over list_review_requests, but the schema and annotations cover the essential invocation details.

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%, with all three parameters having descriptions (e.g., review_request_id as 'Canonical review request identifier (ULID)'). The description itself adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 'Get one review request by identifier' clearly states a specific verb (get), a specific resource (review request), and a specific scope (one by identifier). It distinguishes from siblings like list_review_requests (which retrieves multiple) and create/cancel/replace_review_request (which are mutations).

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 implies usage (when you need a single review request by ID) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as list_review_requests. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. The schema provides some routing context (project_ref) but that is not part of the description.

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