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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses ordering (newest first), the default page size (20), and the accepted state values, which tells the agent the result is a bounded, presorted read. It stops short of describing auth needs, pagination beyond the limit, or what the response contains.

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 compact sentence with the resource and ordering front-loaded, followed by the filters. The closing clause 'Also lists the classes a demand may name' is weakly connected to any parameter and costs clarity for little gain, but overall there is no padding.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers filtering, ordering, and page sizing, which is most of what is needed. It omits any mention of pagination/continuation behavior and the shape of returned demand records, and the 'classes' sentence hints at output content without explaining it.

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%, so the description has to compensate, and it does: it enumerates the valid state values and supplies the limit range (1–200) and default (20), the last of which the schema does not state. This is largely a restatement of the enum and bounds, but for an undocumented schema it meaningfully fills the gap.

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 the resource (demands) with the endpoint GET /v1/demands and the ordering (newest first), which is enough for an agent to recognize it as a list operation distinct from taifoon_post_demand or taifoon_demand_status. It never explicitly names those siblings, so differentiation is implied rather than stated. The trailing clause about 'classes a demand may name' muddies the scope slightly.

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?

Filtering by state and capping with limit implies 'use this to browse/filter demands', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternative tools. The agent has to infer that this is the broad-listing tool and taifoon_demand_status is the single-record one. Minimum viable.

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