Get Image Request Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read, and the description adds what fields come back (status, dates, public status note, deep_link) plus the dual key/title lookup. It omits notable behavior such as what happens when the title is ambiguous or the request is not found.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and lookup keys. The enumerated return fields are slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but the text is efficient overall.

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?

With an output schema present, return values do not need spelling out, and one required parameter is fully specified. The only real gap is failure/ambiguity behavior for title-based lookups, which is minor for this simple read tool.

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% and the schema already documents the request parameter with example formats for both HUM key and title. The description adds nothing beyond restating those accepted forms, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one image request') and names the two lookup keys, so it is clearly the single-record counterpart to list_image_requests_tool. It never explicitly names that sibling, though, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 the usage condition — you must already have a HUM key or image title — but never says when to prefer this over list_image_requests_tool or find_cve_tool, nor what to do if the key is unknown. Usage 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.