simplepractice_list_document_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context about the nature of the resource (types of forms) and the practical meaning of outstandingOnly, going beyond the annotation. It does not disclose any undocumented mutations or side effects, but none exist given the read-only hint.

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, zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the outstandingOnly hint adds actionable value without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should convey the return concept. It implies a list of requests by the verb 'list' and enumerates categories. Pagination is partially covered by the pageSize parameter in the schema. Combined with the readOnly annotation, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, with includeBody and outstandingOnly documented in the schema. The description adds a human-oriented rationale for outstandingOnly ('see just what still needs the client's attention'), which is more interpretable than the schema's 'not completed or locked.' It does not add new meaning for pageSize, but that parameter is intuitive and covered by its name and default.

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 clear verb+resource: lists document requests (paperwork the practice has sent). It enumerates concrete types (consents, questionnaires, etc.), which distinctively frames what this tool returns. The mention of outstandingOnly further clarifies the function, making it unmistakable what the tool does.

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?

Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit. The description says 'Use outstandingOnly to see just what still needs the client's attention,' which is a parameter-level hint, but it does not compare this tool to siblings like get_document_request or list_documents, nor state when to prefer one over the other. Context is present but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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