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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping notion of 'saved requests that can run once per row', which is useful context, but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or whether the list is paginated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the terminology ambiguity between 'requests' and 'investigation functions'.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is close to adequate. However, it leaves the return contents (names, ids, metadata) and the project_id semantics unstated, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 the single project_id parameter, so the schema provides no meaning. The description's phrase 'in a project' implies project scoping, which partially compensates, but it never names project_id or states whether it is required or what happens if omitted.

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 and resource ('Lists the saved requests in a project that can run once per row'), but the tool name and title use 'investigation functions' while the description says 'requests', leaving the agent to infer these are the same object. It also does not distinguish this from siblings like list_request_templates or get_investigation_function.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_request_templates or get_investigation_function. The 'can run once per row' qualifier implies a filtering criterion but not when an agent should pick this tool over its siblings.

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