list_requests

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context through the filters parameter: filters use server-side contains matching, and a filter typo/mismatch 'silently returns nothing' with a recommendation to retry without filters. This goes beyond the annotation.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action and scope immediately without unnecessary detail.

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 read-only list tool with two well-documented optional parameters, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. The filter warning adds practical value, but there is no mention of pagination, result limits, or return shape, and no output schema supplies that information.

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%, and the schema documents both depth and filters thoroughly, including an example and a warning about empty results. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all API requests') and clearly scopes it to the IONOS CLOUD account. This makes it distinct from resource-specific list_* siblings and from get_request/get_request_status, which target individual requests.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_request or get_request_status. The description states what the tool does but does not provide exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to other list tools.

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