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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: results are ordered newest first, status is included, and access is free with any key (an auth/cost hint). It omits pagination/truncation behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by a short access clause that earns its place. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary; the annotation set covers safety semantics; the single parameter is fully documented in the schema; and the description supplies ordering and access context. Nothing an agent needs to select or call this tool is missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the default (20) and maximum (100) for limit. The description adds nothing about limit, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb (List), a specific resource (feature and data requests filed by this account), plus ordering and status inclusion. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling submit_request, which files rather than retrieves requests.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: call this to see requests you have filed. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over another tool or when it is not applicable, and submit_request is never named as the counterpart for creating requests.

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