list_access_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. The description mentions that in data-contract mode consumer entries are read from the governing data_contract, which is a specific behavioral detail, but it doesn't disclose pagination, sorting, default status handling, or what happens when no mode is specified. For a read/list tool, limited behavior disclosure is acceptable but the conditions for data-contract mode remain unclear.

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 brief and to the point, using just a couple of sentences. However, it mixes languages (German main text with English technical terms), which is a structural weakness. It is concise but under-specified for the information it should convey.

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?

Despite having an output schema, this tool has 0% parameter documentation coverage, no annotations, and no usage/alternative guidance. For a 4-parameter filtering tool with siblings to differentiate from, the description is notably incomplete. The data-contract mode note adds context but leaves the normal (non-data-contract) mode behavior unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 4 parameters (status, requester, product_id, owner_contact). It provides zero parameter-level information about filtering semantics, formats, or accepted values. The baseline of 3 cannot be justified given 0% coverage; the description adds no parameter value 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?

The description states it lists subscriber/access requests, with a specific mention of data-contract mode for reading consumer entries. The verb 'auflisten' (list) plus the resource (access requests) is clear, but the mixed German/English text and the reference to 'Subscriber/Zugriffsanfragen' creates slight ambiguity. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like list_product_subscribers, which could overlap in domain.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools include list_product_subscribers and request_data_access, and the description doesn't clarify the distinction between listing access requests versus subscribers. There's a partial hint about data-contract mode but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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