list_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: results are compact summaries with redacted URLs, and pagination is cursor-based. It does not state defaults, ordering semantics beyond what the schema says, safety/read-only nature explicitly, or rate limits. Useful but incomplete for a 12-param tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and the two most important behavioral facts front-loaded. Efficient, though the terseness leaves the 12-parameter surface under-explained.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be spelled out, and the description does hint at redaction and compactness. But for a tool with 12 optional filter parameters, no annotations, and a non-obvious cursor-vs-time-filter relationship, the description is thinner than the complexity warrants.

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 only 50%; limit, state, method, status, status_class, and url_contains have no descriptions in the schema. The description says only 'with filters,' adding no meaning about what can be filtered, no note on how the filters combine, and no clarification of the since_ms/until_ms vs cursor 'after' relationship — the single most confusing interaction in this 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 (List) and resource (captured requests), and adds useful scope detail — compact summaries, redacted URLs, cursor pagination — that clarifies what kind of listing this is. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from search_traffic or watch_requests, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 mention of filters and cursor pagination implies the browse/paginate use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives like search_traffic (broader search) or watch_requests (live streaming). The agent must infer the routing decision from sibling names alone.

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