List Image Requests Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description adds useful context by enumerating the response fields (HUM key, title, status, deep_link). It says nothing about pagination, result caps, or ordering, which matter for a list operation against a remote site.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and source, then the return shape, then the filters. No wasted words; the enum values repeated in the description are the only mild redundancy with the schema.

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 values need not be explained in depth, and the description still names the payload shape and the data source. Missing pagination and ordering behavior keeps it short of complete for a list tool, but it is sufficient to call 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the enum values and the case-insensitive substring behavior. The description restates the same filtering options without adding syntax or combination semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List image requests from images.redhat.com/image-requests') and names the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It never names the sibling get_image_request_tool, so the list-vs-fetch distinction is only implied by the verb.

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 closing sentence implies usage contexts (filter by status or title/key substring) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not route the agent to get_image_request_tool when a single request is wanted. Adequate but leaves the sibling decision to inference.

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