Get consultation request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. 'Fetch' reasonably implies a read-only operation, and 'along with its internal notes thread' adds useful detail about the response contents. However, the description does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or whether this is purely a safe read, which would be valuable given the absence of 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 with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the key extra detail about the notes thread. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the tool does and what the response includes — the consultation request and its internal notes thread. It does not mention possible errors or explicitly route to sibling list tools, but the operation is simple enough that these are not critical gaps.

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 schema only exposes a bare 'id' string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description subtly clarifies that the id refers to a consultation request through 'Fetch a single consultation request', but it never explicitly defines the parameter, its format, or where to obtain the id. The meaning is inferable but not fully compensated by the description.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Fetch', and identifies the exact resource, 'a single consultation request', while also specifying that the internal notes thread is included. The word 'single' naturally distinguishes it from list_consultation_requests, so an agent can tell what this tool does even without reading the schema.

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 this tool is for retrieving one consultation request rather than listing multiple, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over list_consultation_requests or any sibling tool. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance, so the agent must infer usage from the word 'single' and the resource name.

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