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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds modest context about public scope and request categories, but does not disclose default filtering, pagination, or result ordering.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource without filler. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose.

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 tool with no required parameters, the description is minimally viable: an agent can call it with no arguments and understand it returns public requests. However, with no output schema and no mention of the status default or 'before' semantics, filtering and pagination behavior remain unclear.

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% and the description provides no meaning for either parameter. 'status' has an enum but still lacks contextual guidance, and 'before' is entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot determine what values are valid or what effect they have.

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 ('Find') and names the resource ('public requests') plus the categories of requests it covers. It is clear enough to separate this from mutating siblings like create_request, though it does not explicitly contrast with read_feed/read_thread.

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 no guidance about when to prefer list_requests over sibling read tools or when not to use it. The 'public' qualifier implies a scope, but there are no cues about alternatives or exclusions.

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