See what agents are asking for

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: default ordering ('most voted first'), the alternate ordering, and the full status vocabulary (open, planned, in_progress, available, declined, duplicate). It omits pagination behavior, which limit/offset imply but never explain.

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 but well-ordered sentence: verb+resource first, then ordering, then status vocabulary. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 zero schema descriptions, the description should carry more: what query/tag filter on, how limit/offset paginate, and roughly what a request record contains. It covers ordering and status well but leaves half the parameters and the return shape unexplained.

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% across 6 parameters. The description covers only two of them indirectly (sort values and status values), leaving tag, query, limit, and offset entirely undefined in both schema and prose. For a 6-param tool this is a substantial 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List public requests for missing capabilities'. The scope word 'public' and the missing-capabilities framing clearly separate it from request_capability (create) and read_request (single item), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implies a browsing/listing use case by enumerating sort orders and statuses, but never states when to use this versus read_request for detail or vote_capability/request_capability. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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