simplepractice_list_document_requests

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds context about the content (consents, questionnaires, forms, estimates, shared files) and the outstandingOnly filter's meaning. It doesn't disclose pagination or default behavior beyond what the schema already provides, but the read-only nature is covered by 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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence defines the resource and scope, the second explains the key filter. Front-loaded with the most important information.

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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool returns and the key filtering option. It doesn't mention pagination limits or the includeBody tradeoff, but the schema already documents those defaults. The sibling list_documents is not explicitly contrasted, but the resource type is clear enough.

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 67% (2 of 3 params have descriptions). The description adds meaning to outstandingOnly ('just what still needs the client's attention'), which complements the schema's 'not completed or locked'. It doesn't add detail for pageSize or includeBody beyond the schema, but the schema already covers those adequately.

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 clearly states the resource ('Paperwork the practice has sent') and the action ('list document requests'), enumerating the types of paperwork included. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling simplepractice_list_documents by focusing on requests sent by the practice, and mentions the outstandingOnly filter for scoping.

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 context for when to use this tool: to see paperwork the practice has sent, and specifically mentions using outstandingOnly to see what still needs the client's attention. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list_documents is implicitly differentiated by the focus on requests vs. documents.

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