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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' is consistent with them. It goes further by describing the compact row payload plus { nextCursor, hasMore, canPaginate } and the default hiding of test requests, which are behaviors not covered by the 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?

A single dense but front-loaded clause chain: scope and ordering first, then filters, then return shape, then the alternative tool. Every clause carries information, though the semicolon-heavy packing makes it slightly harder to scan than a two-sentence split would.

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 no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return envelope (compact rows plus nextCursor/hasMore/canPaginate) and points to request_get for full detail. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 schema already documents filters, enums, limits, and the 'pass this or formId' rules. The description restates filtering (status, outcome, externalId) and the includeTest behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List requests') plus the scoping options ('one form or a whole workspace'), the sort order ('newest first'), and what it deliberately omits. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by routing detail-seeking callers to request_get.

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?

Gives clear selection context: pass either formId or workspaceId, use includeTest to surface test requests, and use request_get when prefill/context/metadata/answers/timeline are needed. No explicit when-not guidance beyond that, but the alternative is named.

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