get_filtered_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral traits. It only states a read-like operation with no mention of side effects, authentication needs, limits, or pagination. The agent cannot assess safety or constraints from this description alone.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core action and object. However, it omits important details like usage context and behavior, which slightly reduces its completeness despite the brevity.

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 filtered list tool with two fully documented parameters, the description is adequate but lacks details such as whether filters combine with AND/OR, default results, ordering, or response format. The absence of an output schema and annotations leaves moderate gaps for the agent to resolve.

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%, meaning both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'unassigned proof requests', and the filtering condition 'matching criteria'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_proof_status' or 'request_proof' which cover different aspects of proof requests.

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 implies usage for retrieving unassigned requests with criteria, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No sibling-based guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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