get_appeal_request

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

The description 'Get details' restates the readOnlyHint provided in annotations. It adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, authorization needs, or potential side effects. Given that annotations already cover read-only behavior, the description provides minimal extra value.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no redundant information, and every word is necessary.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the input but does not describe the return value or detail what 'details' entails. For a straightforward get operation, this is nearly complete but lacks explicit return information.

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 schema has one parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'by ID', which indicates how to identify the resource, but does not explain what the ID represents or any constraints. This is minimally adequate for a single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'appeal request', and specifies the method 'by ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_appeal_requests or create_appeal_request.

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 have an appeal request ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_appeal_requests or update_appeal_request. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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