Tool That Access Request

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

Annotations provide substantial behavioral information (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's burden is lower. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare - it doesn't mention what type of access occurs, whether authentication is needed, rate limits, or what happens when accessing requests. However, it doesn't contradict annotations either, so it meets the minimum baseline for descriptions with good annotation coverage.

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?

While technically concise with only three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary information about the tool's purpose and usage. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single sentence doesn't provide enough value to justify its existence as a helpful description.

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?

Given that this tool has one required parameter, annotations covering key behavioral aspects, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. While the output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, the description fails to explain what 'access the request' means in practical terms, what kind of requests are involved, or provide any operational context. For a tool with parameter requirements and behavioral implications, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 description coverage is 100% with the username parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't explain why username is required, what relationship it has to 'accessing the request', or provide any context beyond what's already in the structured schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high and description adds no parameter semantics.

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 'Access the request' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'tool_that_access_request' without adding meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what type of request is being accessed, what 'access' entails (e.g., retrieve, modify, approve), or what resource is involved. While it distinguishes from unrelated siblings like get_weather, it fails to provide specific verb+resource information needed for clear purpose understanding.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools like get_called_tools, get_time, or get_weather. The agent receives no information about appropriate use cases or when this tool would be preferred over other options.

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