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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the result ordering ('newest first'), but says nothing about pagination behavior, whether archived requests are excluded by default, or read-only safety — details an agent needs for a 7-param list tool.

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 sentence with the resource first, then ordering, then filters — nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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 cursor-paginated, unannotated list tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it never explains how to page through results or what happens to archived requests. Adequate to identify the tool, insufficient to call it confidently beyond the first page.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It covers three of the seven params (stage, customer, tag) semantically, but leaves limit, cursor (pagination shape), include_archived (default archived visibility) and shop_id entirely unexplained.

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 (requests), the scope (of a shop), the ordering (newest first) and the available filters, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like requests_pipeline or homeowner_listRequests, but the shop-scoped framing is clear enough.

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 stage/customer/tag implies the browsing-and-filtering use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to requests_get / requests_pipeline for other needs. The agent must infer the choice from the filter list alone.

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