acedatacloud_list_access_requests

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not specify whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. For a list operation, it might be implicitly safe, but the description offers no explicit transparency about permissions, data access, or potential limitations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. This achieves high efficiency in conveying the core function.

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?

While the description clearly identifies what the tool does, it lacks contextual details such as what constitutes an 'access request', what the expected output format is, or any related entities. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimally adequate but does not fully round out the context that an agent might need for confident invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Restrict to caller requests', 'Optional policy UUID'), giving clear semantics. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: listing caller-visible service access requests. It distinguishes it from other list tools (e.g., list_sites, list_orders) by specifying the resource type ('service access requests') and the visibility scope ('caller-visible'). This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 does not provide any usage guidance, such as when to use this tool instead of alternatives or the appropriate context. It lacks mention of required prerequisites, typical scenarios, or any conditions that would trigger its use. This leaves the agent without clear direction on when to invoke it.

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