find_access_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the lookup action and use case, but does not mention read-only nature, return format, error behavior, permissions, or side effects. For a lookup tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and parameter. It is concise with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and use case. However, it omits details about the return value, error handling, and the relationship with the similar 'get_access_request' tool, which could leave an agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior and when to choose it over alternatives.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions 'by guid', which adds meaning to the single parameter by identifying it as the lookup key. However, it does not describe the format, constraints, or expected values of the guid, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool 'Find an access request by guid' with a specific resource and parameter. It also adds the use case 'used in guest-link resolution', which provides context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'get_access_request', which could cause confusion about whether to use this or the get variant.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: 'used in guest-link resolution'. This implies a specific scenario, but it does not mention alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to understand its intended purpose, though it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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