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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable operational context: newest-first ordering, cursor pagination, a 31-day range cap, and the project Read authorization requirement.

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?

Front-loads purpose and scope, then folds in pagination, alternative tool, range cap, and permissions without bloating. Minor redundancy between 'with the Requests screen's filters' and 'Mirrors the Requests screen' keeps it from a 5.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers pagination, permissions, range limits, default range, and the sibling for payloads. It stops short of describing the returned request fields, but the 'use get_request for a call's payload' hint usefully implies the list is summary-level.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds value by explaining the cursor handoff for `after` and by constraining `from`/`to` to a 31-day window, which the schema itself does not enforce.

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 requests), the scope (one project's request log), ordering (newest first), and that it mirrors the Requests screen. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_request, which handles a single call's payload.

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?

Explicitly routes payload retrieval to get_request, gives the cursor continuation pattern for pagination, states the 31-day maximum range, and names the required project Read permission. An agent knows both how to call it and when the sibling is more appropriate.

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