List Purchase Requisitions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares read-only behavior, so the description doesn't need restate that. The description adds useful context by noting the append-only nature of the ledger and the human-review queue, implying this is a projection over those. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (limit parameter exists) or what 'projected' means for the returned states.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It's appropriately front-loaded with the purpose. Could arguably add a bit more guidance about parameters, but the brevity itself is a strength.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent to guess what 'projected' states look like, the format of the response, how 'status' filters work, and pagination semantics. The append-only ledger concept is mentioned but not explained. For a list tool with 2 undocumented params and no output schema, this is under-specified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 2 parameters, the description adds no information about either parameter. The 'limit' (1-100) and 'status' (free-form string) parameters are completely undocumented in both the schema and description. However, the tool name and properties make the semantics reasonably guessable, so it's not a severe 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('purchase-requisition states'), and adds context about the data source ('append-only financial ledger and human-review queue'). This distinguishes it somewhat from sibling tools like create/settle/reconcile purchase requisition, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The term 'projected' is slightly ambiguous but conveys approximation.

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 some context (ledger + review queue as sources) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With 47 sibling tools including clearly related ones (create_purchase_requisition, settle_purchase_requisition, reconcile_purchase_ledger), it doesn't state when selecting list vs. these alternatives is appropriate. There is no exclusion language or explicit alternative naming.

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