mdl_friends_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuine requirement of host-configured MyDramaList authentication, which is useful context beyond structured data, but says nothing about which direction of requests is returned or how the list behaves at scale.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency; the first fragment earns little and the second carries the only substantive information.

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 read-only listing endpoint with no output schema, the description never says what is returned (incoming vs outgoing requests, fields, pagination limits) despite the presence of a page parameter. An agent could call it, but not confidently.

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 0% for the single 'page' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not — pagination, page size, and whether page is 1-indexed are all unaddressed. With only one parameter the omission is survivable but still a real gap.

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?

"Friends: requests" merely restates the tool name in fragment form; there is no verb indicating what happens to the requests (list, accept, send, count). The agent cannot tell from the description whether this reads incoming requests, outgoing requests, or both.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the auth note, and no reference to any alternative tool. The agent is left to infer the trigger condition entirely on its own.

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