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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context: the sort order, the type of activity returned, and the meaning of 'since' (shows changes_since). No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance and filters. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 list tool with 5 optional params and no output schema, the description covers the key use case (delta discovery), the ordering, and the main filters. Pagination (limit) is in the schema, and safety is in annotations. It's complete enough for an agent to call correctly, with minor omissions like scope clarification that are already in the schema.

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 60%, with descriptions for since, app_id, and scope. The description adds specific usage for since (the timestamp pattern) and mentions status as a filter, which slightly extends the schema. However, it doesn't clarify limit or the 'mine' vs 'all' distinction beyond what schema already has, so the added value is moderate.

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 clearly states the tool lists the account's platform requests, with a specific ordering ('newest activity first'), which distinguishes it from get_platform_request (single request) and the mutation tools (create/reply/update). The verb+resource is precise and the scope is defined.

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?

It explicitly gives a usage pattern: call at session start with since=<last updated_date> to learn what changed, and enumerates the types of changes (replies, needs_info, deployments). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and actionable.

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