Retrieve Request

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds 'fails if the ID is missing' and 'never contacts remote sites', which are useful beyond annotations. However, the core behavioral traits (read-only, idempotent) are redundant with annotations, preventing a 5.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral transparency.

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 and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, failure behavior, and safety profile. No gaps.

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%, and the parameter description in the schema is already clear ('Stable local request ID to load...'). The tool description does not add new parameter-level information beyond reinforcing the ID usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'one locally tracked FYI/Alaveteli request and its stored correspondence by request ID'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_requests and check_status, meeting the high standard for purpose clarity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('after list_requests when you need full text/history for a single request'), when not to use ('do not use for bulk listing or database health'), and names alternatives (list_requests, check_status). This is exemplary guidance.

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