List information requests

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: that the statuses filter is executed server-side after fetching because the upstream API takes no filter, and a candid caveat that the API does not document what statuses mean. It stops short of covering pagination or result-size behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, and the local-filter caveat earns its place. It is a dense, slightly run-on construction, with the parenthetical speculation about WAITING being a mild digression, but there is little waste.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile for this read-only tool. The main gap is the absence of any when-to-use routing, but otherwise an agent has enough to call it 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 75%, so the schema largely documents statuses, workspace_id, and include_contact_details itself. The description reinforces the local-filtering semantics of statuses and flags the opacity of status values, but adds nothing for max_results and no format detail beyond the schema.

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 resource (information requests, glossed as 'document requests sent to clients') scoped to one workspace, and even enumerates returned fields (subject, status, due date, recipient, item-status counts). The plural/list nature distinguishes it implicitly from get_information_request, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over get_information_request or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only adjacent guidance is a behavioral note that the statuses filter is applied locally, which is not usage routing.

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