simplepractice_get_document_request

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to establish that this is a safe read. The description adds useful context about what the response contains: body or questions and existing answers. It does not describe further behavior like pagination or error cases, but for a simple get-by-id tool this is adequate.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('One document request in full') and immediately clarifies what 'full' means by naming body/questions/answers. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only get-by-id tool, the description plus the fully documented input schema and readonly annotation give an agent enough to select and invoke it correctly. It does not describe the output shape fully, but that is not required given the straightforward resource and available schema information.

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 documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including the view enum and its compact/full effects. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 the resource ('document request') and the scope ('one... in full'), which clearly implies fetching a single item rather than a list. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself, but 'one' versus the sibling 'list_document_requests' makes the purpose reasonably clear.

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 singular framing implies the tool is for retrieving one specific document request by id, rather than listing all requests. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_document_requests or any other alternative, so usage guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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