Filter requesters

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is free to add operational context — and it does: 30 results per page, newest-first, no sorting possible, and an index-lag warning that changes may take minutes to appear. Those are exactly the traits an agent cannot get from the annotation block or 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 most decision-relevant facts (result cap, ordering, immutability of sort) are front-loaded in the first clause. The field enumeration is dense but functional rather than decorative; only the line-wrapping makes it feel heavier than it is.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't document return shapes, and it correctly focuses on query construction, pagination, and indexing lag. The one gap is that it never says what happens at the 40-page cap or how to reach requesters not yet indexed, though the schema covers the page limit.

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 query examples already live in the schema, so baseline would be 3. The description earns more by enumerating the full set of filterable fields, which the schema only hints at with examples, and by restating which fields support the ~ starts-with operator — information an agent needs to compose a valid query.

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 — "Search requesters" — plus its result ordering and page size, which distinguishes it from get_all_requesters or get_requester. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

Usage is implied by the query-driven framing rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for filtered requester lookup, and that get_all_requesters is the unfiltered alternative. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule, and no mention that filter_agents covers the agent side of "include_agents".

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