Get your pending friend requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the requests are 'waiting on YOUR account' and are incoming, clarifying scope and direction beyond the annotations. It does not contradict 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a clarifying clause. There is no fluff; the 'Read-only' note is a brief reinforcement of the annotation. Every part of the description 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?

For a simple read-only list operation with two optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (incoming friend requests) and whose account it applies to. It lacks explicit mention of pagination behavior beyond the schema, but that is minor. The lack of an output schema means the description need not detail return fields, and the provided scope is enough for an agent to invoke 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 100%: both limit and offset have complete descriptions with ranges and defaults. The tool description adds nothing about how these parameters behave in practice, but it doesn't need to since the schema fully documents them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: incoming friend requests waiting on your account. It explicitly distinguishes these as incoming requests from users who have requested to be your friend, which differentiates it from sibling tools like untappd_user_friends or action tools like accept/reject.

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 clearly implies this tool is for viewing pending incoming friend requests, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives such as untappd_user_friends or untappd_notifications. There is no mention of exclusions or direction to accept/reject tools after fetching. Usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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