io_get_maintenance_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description itself adds nothing beyond that: no return shape, no error/not-found behavior, and no note about the compact/full response difference (that detail lives only in the schema).

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity leaves obvious room for routing context that was simply not included.

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 two-parameter read tool there is no output schema, so the description should ideally hint at what is returned or how to handle a missing ID. It covers the essential operation but leaves those behavioral details unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both the required id and the optional view enum are fully documented in the schema, including what compact vs full does. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (Get), resource (iOffice maintenance request), and selection key (by ID), which cleanly distinguishes it from write siblings like io_update_maintenance_request or io_accept_maintenance_request. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with io_list_maintenance_requests, the closest alternative.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention that an ID must first be obtained (e.g., via io_list_maintenance_requests), and no conditions under which this tool should not be used. Usage is only implied by the name and the word 'single'.

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