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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect profile are covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the result set defaults to open requests only, and finished ones are bounded to the last 14 days. 'Read only' merely restates the annotations, and there is no mention of result volume, ordering, or empty-state behavior.

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 the usage trigger front-loaded and the default/opt-in behavior immediately after. The trailing 'Read only' is redundant against the annotations and is the one line that does not earn its place.

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 one-boolean, read-only, non-destructive lookup with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to invoke it, what the response reports (what was asked, plain-language status, when), and how to widen the result set. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the inline description of returned fields.

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 single boolean's meaning is fully documented in the schema itself. The description's phrasing ('set include_finished to also see the last 14 days of finished ones') is essentially a restatement of the schema text, with the only added nuance being that omitting it is the default. 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 names a specific verb ('asks where their requests ... stand') and a concrete resource ('requests to the Suara design team'), plus the fields surfaced ('what was asked, its status in plain words and when it was asked'). It is clearly distinct from write-oriented siblings like send_to_suara or request_post_change, but it never names an alternative tool 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?

The opening 'Use this when the signed-in owner asks where their requests ... stand' gives a precise invocation trigger, and the default scope is spelled out ('Open requests by default'). It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming the sibling to use for creating a new request, so it is strong but not a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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