List indexing requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It nonetheless adds real context beyond them: newest-first ordering, that open requests expose position and ETA, that closed ones expose outcome, and the 90-day retention window for closed requests.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the key scoping information (ordering, site scope, open vs closed) is packed into the opening clause so an agent learns the shape of the result immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the needed work of describing what each result mode returns (position and ETA, or outcome) plus retention. Pagination mechanics are delegated to the cursor parameter's schema description, which is a reasonable split.

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 75%, with site, limit and cursor well documented in the schema. The description adds semantics the schema lacks for status, spelling out what 'open' (preparing, queued, served) and 'closed' (outcome) actually contain, which is the one enum without a description.

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 specific verb and resource (list indexing requests) plus the ordering (newest first) and scope (one site or all). It implicitly contrasts with get_indexing_request by being a listing, but never names the sibling that returns a single 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 open/closed split and the 'one site or all of them' phrasing imply how to use the status and site parameters, but no sentence says when to prefer this over get_indexing_request or how to follow up on a request. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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