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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description earns credit for adding ordering ('newest first') and the non-obvious result-set behavior that filtered lists omit legacy requests. It does not discuss pagination edge cases beyond what the cursor schema implies.

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 tight sentences, ordering and scope front-loaded followed by the filtering caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 3-parameter, zero-required list tool with an output schema, full annotation coverage, and 100% schema description coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: sort order and the filtered-vs-unfiltered visibility caveat. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 schema already documents limit, cursor, and media_kit_id with types, bounds, and pattern. The description reinforces the media_kit_id filter's meaning but adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List owned media-kit deal requests') plus ordering semantics ('by request creation time, newest first'), which separates it from deal_request_get. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, so it stops short of 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?

It states the optional filter condition ('Optionally filter by an owned media kit ID') and, more usefully, a caveat that tells the agent when filtering loses data: historical requests without a recorded source kit appear only in the unfiltered list. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it is not a 5.

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