list_rhr_requests

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

The annotations already indicate a read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true) and an open-world result, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds the filtering behavior and endpoint context, but does not disclose pagination, default scoping, or result shape.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the resource, purpose, filters, and endpoint with no filler. It is compact and every part earns its place.

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 with two optional, fully documented parameters, the description and annotations together are largely sufficient. Minor gaps, such as no enumeration of status values or description of the response format, prevent a perfect score, but nothing critical is 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 input schema already fully describes both parameters: status and location, including the location example 'NL'. The description only repeats that filtering by location and status is possible, so it does not add meaningful semantics 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 a clear retrieval action ('list') on RHR requests and identifies the two filters: location and status, plus the endpoint rhr/list. It is distinct from the create/add/comment/discard RHR sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implies it is used when you need to view RHR requests, optionally filtered by location or status. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like create_rhr_request or add_rhr_comment, nor does it include any exclusion rules.

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