Request Where

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that the estimate is approximate and derived from requests played so far, and that the result may instead be a playing/played state rather than a number. It leaves out what happens when no matching request is found (error vs empty).

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?

Front-loaded with the return semantics before the usage trigger and parameter notes, and no sentence is filler. The telegraphic 'who:'/'venue:' field notation is dense but slightly awkward, and the opening clause is a fragment.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still characterizes them, plus covers usage and both parameters for a simple two-param read. The only real gap is the not-found path, which is meaningful given a name-based lookup.

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 0%, so the description must define both parameters and it does: 'who' is the name as chat displays it and is explicitly case-insensitive, and 'venue' is scoped to disambiguating identical names across two sites. That is meaning well beyond the bare string types in 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?

States concretely what the tool returns: a viewer's place in line, an approximate wait, or a playing/played state. That is a specific resource (a single viewer's request status) distinguishable from bulk siblings like request_list or request_next, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Reach for it when a viewer asks when theirs plays or how long until their request" gives an explicit trigger condition tied to the human intent behind the call. It stops short of naming alternatives (request_list, request_next, request_credits) or stating when not to use it.

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