get_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey an auth-related trait: 'public requests work without a token.' However, it does not explain what happens for non-public requests, whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or rate limits. The 'YELLOW' label is only partially explained. Some useful behavioral context is present, but notable gaps remain.

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 extremely compact: a one-line purpose, a brief auth note, and an argument definition. Every sentence carries useful information and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is no redundancy with the schema.

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 single-parameter getter, the description covers the essential call: what it returns and what parameter is needed. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out details about what 'in detail' includes, how non-public requests are authenticated, and possible failure modes. It is adequate for a basic call but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds the crucial semantic that 'id' is a numeric request id, going beyond the schema's bare integer type. It tells the agent which identifier to pass. It is minimal but sufficient for a single parameter.

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 identifies the tool as returning a single FOI request's details ('One FOI request in detail'). This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like list_my_requests, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The verb and resource are clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_my_requests or search_authorities. It implies the agent should already have a request id, but it does not state that a prior lookup is needed or mention any exclusions or alternatives. This leaves usage context entirely to inference.

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