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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: sort order, the paging/default-window semantics of 'after', and the explicit side-effect disclaimer regarding wait_for_request's position.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct load: purpose, paging behavior, sibling routing, and side-effect disclaimer. The essential scope and ordering appear up front with no 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?

Output schema exists so return shape needn't be documented. Ordering, paging, filtering parameters (covered by schema), sibling alternative, and non-interference with wait_for_request are all addressed, leaving nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning the schema lacks, namely what happens when 'after' is omitted (most recent requests are returned) versus when it is supplied, which is the key semantic distinction for this parameter.

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 ('List captured requests as summaries') plus result granularity and sort order ('oldest first'). It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_request, which returns headers and body, so the agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing ('Use get_request for headers and body') and spells out the paging condition: no 'after' means most recent, with 'after' means page forward from that id. It further clarifies the tool does not move wait_for_request's position, resolving a likely coordination question with a sibling.

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