Request Feature Access

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies this is for 'gated' features (implying permission-based access) and involves a 'request' process (suggesting approval workflows). Annotations already indicate it's non-destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, and open-world, but the description usefully adds the gated/request context without contradicting annotations.

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, focused sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for this tool's function.

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 annotations provide good behavioral coverage (non-destructive, idempotent, etc.) and the schema fully documents parameters, the description adds some useful context about gated features and request processes. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what happens after the request (approval status, confirmation, etc.), leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters ('feature' and 'reason'). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

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 action ('request access') and target resource ('gated platform feature'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'dual_get_organization' or 'dual_update_organization' that might also relate to access management, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'dual_create_organization' or 'dual_update_organization' that might involve access control, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for this specific access request function.

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