List my requests

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: it warns that the result names the identity the request answered for and that in personal mode this may be the server's configured account rather than the caller. That is a genuinely useful, non-obvious disclosure for a read tool; it stops short of describing pagination or ordering behavior, but limit is covered by the schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the identity caveat follows logically. The closing sentence about display names versus OIDs is a formatting directive rather than a property of this tool, so it is slightly off-target, but it is short and does not obscure the main point.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the main semantic trap: whose requests are actually being returned. What is missing is positional guidance relative to sibling list and case tools, which leaves a gap for an agent choosing between them.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema with default and maximum. The description adds nothing about what limit counts or how results are ordered, so the schema does the work and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource scoped to the caller ("approval cases the authenticated user initiated"), which distinguishes it from generic case or work-item tools. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling (list_request_targets) or state how the two differ, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_request_targets, get_case, or list_work_items. The agent must infer from the name alone when this list is the right entry point versus those siblings.

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