List requesters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top: it says nothing about pagination behavior, the default exclusion of agents (include_agents defaults to false, a real behavioral trait), or result ordering, so it earns no credit beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core action comes first. It is arguably too terse for a 7-parameter list tool, but nothing in it is wasteful.

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?

For a 7-parameter listing tool with pagination and a default that hides agents, the description leaves the agent to discover key behavior from the schema alone and gives no routing signal against filter_requesters. Output schema and annotations cover the return shape and safety, but the selection-time context is thin.

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 every parameter including page, per_page, active and include_agents is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the email/phone lookup idea and adds no format or precedence semantics (e.g. how multiple filters combine). Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List requesters") plus the optional lookup keys, so the action is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling filter_requesters, which reads as the same job, nor from get_requester for single-record retrieval.

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?

"Optionally looked up by email or phone" implies when the filter parameters are worth setting, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over filter_requesters, nor any statement about when not to use it. Usage is only inferable.

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