list_my_requests

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the operation is read-only, requires a token with scope read:request, and is limited to the caller's own requests. That is meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention response format or pagination beyond the limit parameter, but for a simple list operation the core behavior is clear.

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 compact and front-loads the resource and safety profile, followed by two parameter lines. No filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 low-complexity list tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, auth, read-only behavior, and all parameters. It could additionaly state the shape of the returned request objects, but that is not essential for basic invocation.

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 cover age is 0%, yet the description compensates by explaining both parameters: status is an optional filter with concrete example values, and limit is the maximum number of results. This adds meaning the schema's titles and defaults alone do not provide.

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 identifies the resource as the user's own FOI requests, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_request or search_authorities. It lacks an explicit verb, though the tool name 'list' carries the action. Overall clear and specific.

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?

It states the scope ('your own') and an authorization prerequisite, which gives context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so routing to siblings is left to inference.

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