filter_requesters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Filter requesters' and lists params, without mentioning read-only status, return format, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 short and to the point, with a clear 'Args:' block listing parameters. The query examples sentence adds useful context. It is concise and well-structured, though slightly informal and could benefit from clearer formatting.

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 filter tool with no annotations and a sparse description, it lacks critical context: what fields are searchable, how query matching works, pagination behavior, and how it relates to other requester tools. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the input semantics and usage context are under-described.

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 description adds minimal meaning to the parameters, e.g., 'query: Filter query string' and 'per_page: Results per page', and the query examples (email, name, department) suggest usage. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not fully compensate by explaining query syntax or supported operators, so it only partially clarifies parameter semantics.

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 'Filter requesters', which is a clear verb+resource combination, and provides query examples (email, name, department) that specify the scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like get_requesters or filter_agents, so it lacks clear sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The query examples hint at typical use cases, but no context is given about prerequisites, when not to use it, or what distinguishes it from get_requesters or other filter tools.

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