get_user_by_user_id_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP GET endpoint and path/query parameter locations, which is mild extra context. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or error semantics, but the annotation bar lowers the requirement.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, and a parameter list. It avoids fluff and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly tighter, but it is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no parameter explanations, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation. The output schema exists, but the missing take/skip semantics means an agent may not know how to paginate or whether values are required. Given the low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate significantly, which it does not.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only labels parameters as 'Path parameter' or 'Query parameter,' which tells location but not meaning. It does not explain that take/skip are typical pagination controls or any allowed values/defaults, leaving the agent to guess their 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get requests for a specific user.' This clearly distinguishes it from general list tools like list_request and other per-user subresource tools (e.g., get_user_by_user_id_quota). However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, so it misses the full top score.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for a specific user' – an agent can infer this tool is for retrieving one user's requests rather than all requests. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_request, nor any exclusions or alternatives, so guidance remains implicit.

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