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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'active' status filter and the 'one authorized customer' scoping constraint, which are useful, but it doesn't disclose pagination or error behavior. This is comparable to the get_calls calibration baseline.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that fronts the action and subject, with no redundant wording. Every part contributes meaning.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with good schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the schema lists zero required parameters while the description implies customer_id is necessary for 'one authorized customer', leaving ambiguity about whether the tool can be called without it. The description doesn't resolve this.

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%, with both limit and customer_id documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'bounded status, source, urgency, and scheduling fields' could confuse agents by suggesting additional parameters that do not exist in the schema, rather than clarifying the two actual parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' with a clear resource ('service requests') and explicit scope: 'recent active' and 'one authorized customer'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get-service-request (single record) and search-service-requests (broader search).

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 description implies usage for a single authorized customer's active requests, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. There is no direct guidance on choosing this over search-service-requests or get-service-request.

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