list_service_requests

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 'List' and enumerates filters; it never states that the operation is a safe read, how filters combine (AND vs OR), behavior when no filters are passed, pagination beyond the schema's default-20 note, or any auth requirements. The verb 'list' implies read-only but nothing is made explicit.

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 two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded ('List service requests') before the filter details. The status enumeration is long but earns its place because the schema provides no enum values. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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, no annotations, and four optional parameters, the description is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants. It omits what a returned service request item looks like, what happens with no filters (returns all?), and how this relates to get_service_request or list_request_steps. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, an agent is left guessing about the response contract.

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 50% — limit and status have descriptions while customerId and providerId do not. The description compensates meaningfully by enumerating all 11 valid status values (which the schema lacks, as there are no enums) and by confirming customerId/providerId serve as filters. However, it adds no ID format, no semantics for how filters interact, and no guidance on limit usage beyond what the schema already says.

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 specific verb+resource pair — 'List service requests' — and adds the filter scope (status, customerId, providerId), which sharpens the purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_service_request or list_request_steps, but the resource name and plural 'list' framing make the core purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives — no exclusions, no mention of get_service_request for single requests, no distinction from list_services or list_request_steps. Given the large sibling set containing several list/get tools with similar names, an agent receives no routing cues beyond the tool name itself.

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