list_requests

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and a contradictory-looking destructiveHint; the description adds only ordering ('newest first') and output shape ('one text line each'). It does not disclose truncation behavior, the default 20-row cap's consequences, or how the cursor interacts with filters, which is the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but '(see format)' is a dangling reference to documentation the agent does not have, so a sentence that appears to earn its place actually adds no retrievable information. Two of the three clauses are informative; one is wasted.

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?

Ten parameters, no output schema, and the return value is described only as 'one text line each (see format)' plus an unexplained '×N' grouping that lives only in a parameter description. Without an output schema the description must explain the row format and next_cursor, and it explicitly defers both.

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%, so all ten parameters are already documented in the schema (wildcards, '2xx', '10m' syntax, comma-separated methods). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the filter-vs-paging hint, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('requests') and ordering ('newest first'), and implies a list operation, but never uses a verb and never distinguishes it from siblings like search_traffic or get_request. 'Recent requests' leaves scope (recent within what session? what time bound?) undefined.

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?

'Filter rather than paging' is the only usage guidance and is implicit — it hints that parameters should be preferred over cursor iteration but never names an alternative tool or the conditions that would make one choose search_traffic or get_request instead.

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