Get My Request

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: internal agent notes are never returned on this path, so no agent-private data can leak. It also discloses the security-relevant quirk that a foreign request returns "permission denied" rather than "not found", which changes how an agent should interpret the error.

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 sentences are dense but front-loaded: purpose and return shape first, then the privacy guarantee, then the permission-denied caveat, then sibling routing. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, with no filler or restatement of the name.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description supplies everything needed: what is returned, what the optional parameter adds, what is deliberately excluded, and how errors should be read. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: with include_comments, each message is labelled with its author and flagged when that author is a support agent. It also explains the cost tradeoff implied by the default, though the include_comments wording overlaps substantially with the schema text.

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?

Opening sentence names a specific verb and resource with an explicit scope: reading one of the signed-in user's own requests, optionally with the full conversation. It also names the sibling it is not (get_ticket) and points to list_requests for id discovery, so the agent can differentiate it from get_ticket and list_requests without opening any schema.

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?

It gives concrete routing instructions: use list_requests to find the number, and use get_ticket when an agent is reading a ticket it does not own. That is an explicit when-to-use plus a named alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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