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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description doesn't need to. It still adds real value: the 7-day expiry window, the meaning of each of the five terminal states, and the API-key requirement. It does not describe ordering or volume, but the added context is well above the annotation 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?

Front-loaded with the outcome ('See the changes you asked someone else to approve') before the mechanism. The middle sentence about seat ownership is long but load-bearing, since without it the agent cannot understand what qualifies as a change request; only the status gloss could be trimmed.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return semantics and does so by enumerating the five statuses including the subtle 'failed' vs 'declined' distinction. Missing only minor details such as ordering or whether resolved requests are retained.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing about arguments that the description needs to compensate for. The description correctly implies no filtering is possible because it returns all requests for the caller.

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?

Uses a specific verb (lists) and resource (change requests) and immediately defines what a change request is: a change to a to-do, number, priority, project or issue owned by a seat the user doesn't hold. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_inbox or list_tickets without opening any schema.

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 explains the scenario that produces these requests, which implies when the tool is relevant, but never states when to call it versus alternatives (e.g. get_inbox, my_dashboard) or any exclusions. Usage is left to inference rather than declared.

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