get_request_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does convey that this is a full-fidelity read returning headers and both bodies, and the '100%' phrasing hints at completeness versus any summarized view. It says nothing about permissions, behavior on a missing/nonexistent ID, size/truncation of large bodies, or whether the data is immutable.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a tight parenthetical listing the returned fields; nothing is wasted. Slightly dense but easily parsed by an agent.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned (full headers, input body, response body), which is the main thing the absent output schema would have covered. Missing only edge-case behavior for invalid IDs.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as 'The ID of the request in the SQLite vault'. The description only restates 'by its ID' and adds no format, sourcing, or validity constraints beyond the 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 ('Retrieve complete audit details of a previous request by its ID') and enumerates the payload (headers, input body, response body). It is clearly distinct from search_history by being an ID-based lookup, though it never names the sibling to make that contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is implied: use it once you already have a request ID from somewhere (e.g., search_history). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_history or export_history, and no mention of what to do if the ID is unknown.

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