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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the return of null after log retention, the meaning of configVersion (0 = unstamped), and the inclusion of per-target attempts with specific statuses. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the 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 two sentences with zero redundant text. The core function (getting the envelope and attempts) is front-loaded, and the edge case about retention is placed second. Every sentence adds value.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return payload structure (envelope + attempts with statuses), the configVersion semantics, project scoping, and the aging-out null case. It also points to get_project for the retention setting, making it complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 fully describes the sole parameter (requestId) with its source and format at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the schema is already complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one inbound request envelope + every per-target delivery attempt'), and lists the four statuses covered (success / permanent_failure / retry_scheduled / dlq). It clearly differentiates from list_requests (which lists rows) by focusing on a single request with full delivery attempt detail.

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 context of returning null after the retention window and being scoped to the project provides clear usage context, and it references get_project for retention config. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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