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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the result filter (only open, unexpired, public requests) and the demo-record inclusion rule, but says nothing about pagination or result limits.

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 with no filler, and the core scoping constraint is front-loaded. The include_demo caveat follows logically.

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 an 8-parameter list tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description omits critical mechanics such as cursor-based pagination and the meaning of since, region, language, and environment. It is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 8 parameters. The description only touches include_demo, leaving limit, query, since, cursor, region, language, and environment entirely undocumented anywhere, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (List) and resource (requests) with meaningful scope qualifiers: 'open, unexpired, public'. This clearly separates it from create_request and respond_to_request siblings, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides one conditional hint ('Demo records require include_demo'), which is genuine usage guidance, but gives no when-to-use vs when-not framing and does not point to sibling list tools like list_my_updates or search_outcomes.

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