simplepractice_get_document_request

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a read-only operation. The description adds that the response includes full details (body/questions/answers), which is useful context, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, pagination, or authentication requirements. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 immediately conveys the core functionality ('One document request in full') and elaborates on what 'in full' means. There is no wasted verbiage, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter, no output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool returns and implies the need for an ID. It could mention that the ID is required, but the schema already indicates required, so this is adequately covered.

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 description covers 100% of the parameter ('The document request id.'), and the tool description does not add further nuance beyond that. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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'), a single resource ('one document request'), and the content ('in full, including its body or its questions and the answers already given'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list document requests, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 this tool is for retrieving a single document request by ID, which is distinct from listing tools like 'list_document_requests'. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusion conditions. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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