get_request_by_request_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the 'Get' wording is fully consistent with them — no contradiction. The description adds the HTTP method/path but no deeper behavior like error responses for unknown IDs or auth expectations, which the annotations' safety profile partially mitigates.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, and the endpoint line carries genuine routing information. The Args block is redundant with the input schema, but it is only two lines and does not meaningfully bloat the definition.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent GET with an output schema, the definition is mostly adequate: pass a request_id and receive a MediaRequest. It is incomplete in connective guidance — it does not say IDs can be obtained from list_request or clarify what the returned MediaRequest contains beyond what the output schema already documents.

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 must compensate, but 'Args: request_id: Request ID' merely echoes the schema's title and type. It adds no format expectations, provenance (e.g., obtainable from list_request), or example values. The only marginal addition is the {requestId} placeholder in the endpoint implying a path 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get MediaRequest') and the endpoint 'GET /api/v1/request/{requestId}' makes the single-resource-by-ID semantics explicit. It falls short of a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself with the collection-level sibling list_request or the mutating update/delete request variants, leaving differentiation to the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of list_request for fetching all requests, no note on where request_id comes from, and no exclusion such as 'for mutations use update_request_by_request_id.' Usage context must be entirely inferred from the tool name and endpoint.

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