Check a Studio request

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the response includes cancellation state, and a missing request means it expired or was disconnected. That interpretive guidance is what an agent can't derive from 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then usage, then the failure-mode caveat. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The description still adds the one thing an agent would otherwise get wrong — treating a missing request as an error to retry rather than an expired resource.

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?

Only one parameter, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. 'Known ID' usefully implies the ID must be obtained beforehand rather than guessed, but no format or sourcing detail is added. Adequate but thin for a zero-coverage schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read an existing shared request by its known ID') plus an extra scope detail (cancellation state). It hints at its niche ('resume your own in-progress draft') but does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like studio_next_request or studio_connect.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use ('resume your own in-progress draft') and a caution against misuse ('do not recreate them automatically'). However, it never names an alternative tool or the condition that selects a sibling over this one.

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