get_request

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

The annotations already indicate that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that it 'includes its requested items,' which provides some behavioral insight, but it does not detail how those items are returned or if there are any additional constraints, resulting in minimal added value.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the essential information. Every word contributes to clarity, and there is no extraneous content.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and annotation support, the description is sufficient. It states the resource and the inclusion of requested items, though it does not describe the return format in detail since no output schema is present. The missing output schema means the description could slightly benefit from more structure hints, but it remains adequate.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'number_or_sysid' with an example. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new semantic information about the 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 states the action ('Get'), the resource ('service catalog request (sc_request)'), the method ('by number or sys_id'), and the scope ('including its requested items'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_request_item' and 'list_requests'.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving a specific request when you have its number or sys_id. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which keeps it from being a 5.

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