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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with the default sort order ('newest activity first'), but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or whether all workspace requests or only the caller's are returned.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core behavior and the sort order are front-loaded before the optional filter.

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 list tool with no output schema, the key missing piece is pagination/result-limit behavior and what a returned request summary contains. Everything needed to invoke it correctly is present, but not everything needed to consume 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 100% and the status enum is fully enumerated in the schema, so the description only needs to frame the parameters. It confirms the optional status filter and workspace scoping, but adds no syntax or default-behavior detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 scope ('in a workspace') and ordering ('newest activity first'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_request (single item) or list_recurring_requests, but the plural list framing makes the intent reasonably clear.

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?

'Optionally filter by status' implies the common usage pattern, but the description never says when to prefer this over get_request, get_my_work, or list_recurring_requests. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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