simplepractice_list_document_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, but the description adds materially beyond them: the hard truncation behavior (at most pageSize, max 50, newest rows only) and the non-obvious caveat that hasMore:true means older rows AND the counts over them may be missing — a subtle correctness trap for an agent. It also flags that returned text is third-party authored and untrusted, an explicit prompt-injection warning. This is exactly the beyond-annotation context this dimension rewards.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity, then the filter tip, the pagination caveat, and the security warning. Every sentence carries distinct operational value — no restatement of the tool name or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value semantics, and it does the important part: hasMore, the pageSize cap, newest-first ordering, and the missing-counts caveat. The main remaining gap is that it never hints at what fields an individual request row contains, which an agent must discover by calling.

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 coverage is 67%: includeBody and outstandingOnly are described in the schema, but pageSize has no description there. The description compensates by stating 'Returns at most pageSize (max 50) of the newest rows', adding the truncation/ordering meaning the schema lacks, and reiterates the outstandingOnly filter meaning. Small residual gap around pageSize's default/ordering semantics alone.

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 resource — 'paperwork the practice has sent' — and enumerates the concrete types (consents, questionnaires, contact and insurance forms, Good Faith Estimates, shared files), so an agent knows exactly what is listed. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling get_document_request (singular) or list_documents, which keeps it out of 5 territory, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a concrete use case for one parameter ('Use outstandingOnly to see just what still needs the client's attention'), which is real guidance. However, it says nothing about when to reach for this list versus get_document_request for a single item or list_documents, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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