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

The annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds beyond that by specifying that it shows pending, approved, and rejected requests, and explicitly requires authentication. This improves transparency without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no wasted words. The second sentence adds meaningful detail about result statuses and authentication, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: lists all requests including statuses. It lacks pagination or ordering details, but for a straightforward list operation with clear parameter schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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% with descriptions for both apiKey and taskId. The description's mention of 'for a task' aligns with the taskId meaning but adds no syntax or additional semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 states 'List all reschedule requests for a task' with a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_reschedule and reject_reschedule by focusing on listing, and includes the scope of statuses shown.

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 clear context: use when you need to view reschedule requests for a task, and it mentions authentication as a prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score, but the usage is clearly implied.

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