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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful behaviors beyond that: results are limited to the caller's own requests and are ordered newest first. It says nothing about pagination, the default page size, or the maximum limit, which matter for a cursor-based listing tool.

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 zero filler, but it is so terse that essential guidance was cut rather than compressed.

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 four-parameter, cursor-paginated listing tool with two enums and no output schema, the definition omits filter semantics, page size behavior, and how to continue with a cursor. An agent could call it, but not confidently or efficiently.

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% across four parameters, so the description needed to carry the load, but it never mentions mode, status, limit, or cursor. The enum values 'form' and 'approval' are especially opaque with no explanation of what distinguishes them.

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 (Find) and resource (requests) plus scope ('you already created') and ordering ('newest first'), so the agent knows this is a listing of the caller's own requests. It stops short of differentiating from getStatus or the other siblings, so not a 5.

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 statement of when to use this rather than getStatus, previewRequest, or createRequest, and no mention of what mode/status filters are for. The 'requests you already created' scoping is the only implicit usage cue.

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