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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the description owes nothing on safety, but it adds nothing either: it says nothing about whether results are scoped to a specific revision, whether an empty list is possible, or how the returned values relate to the request's execution. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is on the low end of 'adds some context'.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, so there is no wasted wording. The terseness is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, which caps the score.

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 two-parameter tool in a dense domain (specs, revisions, investigation inputs) with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum state the relationship to the spec/revision pair and how the output differs from get_investigation_inputs.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: spec_id is only obliquely gestured at via 'saved request', and revision_id is never mentioned despite being the parameter that likely changes which inputs are returned. An agent cannot infer from the description when to supply revision_id.

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 verb 'Lists' plus the concept of 'values in a saved request that can become inputs' gives a rough idea, but the noun chosen ('parameters' in the name, 'possible inputs' in the title, 'values ... that can become inputs' in the description) is inconsistent, and the description never says what a 'saved request' is in this API's vocabulary (spec? revision?). It does not distinguish this from the very similar sibling get_investigation_inputs or spec_options.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-duplicate siblings get_investigation_inputs and spec_options, which an agent would have to disambiguate by guesswork. The only usage signal is the name itself, which the description does not reinforce.

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