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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the meaning of the suspect filter but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result limits, so it contributes only modest extra 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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler; the core operation is front-loaded and the filter clarification follows. Nothing in the text is redundant or padding.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the definition covers what an agent needs to call the tool. It leaves minor gaps around filter combination logic (AND vs OR across story/subsystem/stakeholder filters) and result ordering or limits.

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 all five parameters (including the filter arrays and the suspect flag) are already documented in the schema. The description's restatement of `suspect_only` largely duplicates the schema text, adding no syntax or semantics beyond it.

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 requirements") scoped to a project, so an agent immediately knows the operation and its boundary. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as requirements_get_many or requirement_items_list, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The sentence about `suspect_only` implies a concrete use case (finding requirements invalidated by later story edits), which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many requirement-related siblings.

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