get_request_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description isn't required to restate these. It does add that the tool retrieves variables, which is a specific behavioral detail beyond the resource itself. However, it doesn't disclose what happens when no results are found, whether both identifiers can be provided, or any error conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds modest 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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the lookup methods. No filler or redundancy. Every word 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should give some indication of the return structure. It mentions 'with its variables,' which hints at the content, but doesn't describe the overall return format, whether the full record is returned, or behavior when no match is found. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not thorough. Annotations cover the read-only nature, so the main gap is return value expectations.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents the meaning of 'number' and 'sys_id'. The description's phrase 'by number or sys_id' implies these are alternative identifiers, which is a slight addition. However, it doesn't clarify mutual exclusivity, optionality, or precedence. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb (Get), the resource (requested item/RITM), and specifies that it retrieves variables. It also notes the two identification methods (number or sys_id), which distinguishes it from other get tools targeting different resources. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from siblings like update_request_item.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions, alternatives, or context such as when to use get_request_item instead of list_catalog_tasks or get_incident. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the resource name.

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