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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: it specifies that only visible requests are returned, lists the exact return fields, and explains that status_filter is a case-insensitive substring match. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two short paragraphs: the first states the core purpose, the second lists return fields and the filter behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with full annotations and an output schema, this description is complete. It covers the source (public requests page), the scope (visible requests), the returned fields, and the filter semantics. No significant gaps that would impede correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does so for status_filter by explaining its matching behavior. user_slug and limit are self-explanatory from the tool name and standard usage, so the partial explanation is sufficient.

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 starts with a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: a user's visible WhatDoTheyKnow requests from their public requests page. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_request_detail (single request) or get_user_feed_items (feed items), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: it lists a user's visible/public requests, implying it is for public-facing data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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