list_api_requests

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds useful behavioral context: results are newest-first, they cover the server's own logged API requests rather than some external or user-facing list, and each log includes the answer returned. These traits go beyond what the annotations state, though they do not describe response format or pagination behavior in detail.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and ordering; the second sentence justifies when an agent would want to call it. Every word earns its place and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource, ordering, and a diagnostic scenario. There is no output schema, and the description only hints that logs include 'what answer,' but it does not specify the fields returned. This is a minor gap rather than a fatal one.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for to, from, page, method, status, and per_page, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond implying time and filter relationships, which keeps this at the baseline score.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List the server's own logged API requests, newest first.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling email-list tools like list_emails and list_bounces, which list different resources. It also adds a concrete diagnostic purpose, removing ambiguity about what the tool is for.

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 gives a clear, concrete use case: 'Useful when a send did not arrive and the question is whether the request ever reached the API, and with what answer.' This tells an agent when to choose this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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