retrieve_customer_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is 'Retrieve' and mentions the return type, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only guarantees, error responses, not-found behavior, or authorization requirements. This is a minimal read operation, but the description lacks explicit transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence for the purpose, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every part earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the parameters needed, and the return value. Given that an output schema exists (per context signals), the Returns text is supplementary. It lacks error-handling or edge-case details, but these are not critical for a straightforward fetch operation.

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 provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the Args section in the description adds meaningful semantics: it specifies that both parameters are UUIDs and explains their roles ('of the customer', 'of the customer request'). This goes beyond the schema's bare type strings, though it does not detail constraints like format patterns or validation rules.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('customer request'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_customer_request, update_customer_request, and delete_customer_request. The 'by ID' clarifies the scope, though the exact IDs are detailed in the Args section.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_customer_requests or retrieve_customer. The description implies usage via 'Retrieve by ID' but does not explicitly state when to choose it or exclude other retrieval methods.

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