list_report_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond listing, such as pagination behavior, ordering, or that access_type is an exact-match filter. It does not contradict annotations.

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 description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It could add a brief note about filters or pagination, but it is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has an output schema, annotations, and full schema coverage, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, it lacks guidance on pagination behavior, default limit, and how access_type filtering behaves, which an agent might need to know for correct invocation. It is adequate but not rich.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as the relationship between app_id and list_apps or the meaning of access_type values. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('analytics report requests') and scopes it to an app. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like list_reports or list_report_instances, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself.

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 usage context: list report requests for an app, with an optional access_type filter. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_reports or list_report_instances, nor does it mention exclusions. The schema provides filter details, but the description itself offers no alternative routing.

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