List your wanted requests

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are newest first, include a public URL and status values, and the call requires GLONGUS_API_KEY. It does not discuss pagination or empty-result behavior, but for a zero-parameter list tool the added context is solid.

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 compact sentence with the key scope and return information front-loaded. Every clause contributes: what is listed, ordering, returned fields, status values, and the API-key requirement.

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 read-only list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies enough: scope, ordering, the fields returned, the possible statuses, and the authentication requirement. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema, and the description appropriately does not invent any.

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 a specific resource and scope: the caller's wanted requests, returned newest first with public URL and status. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as list_owner_requests or post_wanted_request.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The 'your wanted requests' scope implies a personal list, but an agent must infer that from the wording rather than being routed by the description.

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