list_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond that: a deferred request leaves its result ('retour') empty until processing completes. This is useful but cryptic, mixes languages, and says nothing about filtering, pagination, or ordering.

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 no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the deferred-request caveat. The second sentence is somewhat opaque, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out. Still, for a search tool with three filters it omits how the filters interact and — most importantly — how it differs from list_pending_requests, leaving an agent under-equipped to choose or invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents value, subtype, and endpoint. The description adds no syntax, defaulting, or combination logic beyond that, which is the correct baseline when structured fields do the work.

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 gives a verb and resource ('Search the requests made through the API'), so the broad purpose is discernible. However, it never distinguishes this from the near-identical sibling list_pending_requests, nor does it clarify what 'requests' means here versus pending ones. The purpose is vague enough that an agent cannot reliably separate the two tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for a narrower case. The only contextual clue is the note about 'retour' staying empty for deferred requests, which describes state rather than selection criteria.

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