List access requests

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

The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: 'Listing may persist expiry/retention,' which explains why the tool carries readOnlyHint=false despite being a list operation — exactly the kind of side effect annotations alone can't convey. It also surfaces the data-retention windows and a prompt-injection warning about visitor notes, though it omits failure/auth-error behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct load: eligibility, injection warning, retention policy, side effect. The role constraint is front-loaded before the caveats.

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, return shape needs no explanation, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: who may call, side effects, and retention windows. A note on whether results are paginated or filtered would close the last gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words restating an empty schema.

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 requests for permitted apps') scoped to a named audience (portal owner / people-manager). It is clearly separable from siblings requests_approve and requests_deny, though it never names those siblings explicitly to route between them.

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 role gate ('Current portal owner (owner or people-manager role)') tells the agent who may call it, which is real eligibility guidance. It does not say when to list versus escalate to requests_approve/requests_deny, and there are no explicit when-not conditions, so usage remains implied.

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