list_users_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and 'Get' confirms a safe read operation. The description adds little behavioral nuance beyond that, such as whether all requests or only pending requests are returned, but output schema and annotations cover much of this burden.

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, front-loaded with the resource, and has no fluff. It is appropriately short for a simple GET tool, though the argument explanation is so terse that it does not add much practical value.

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?

Despite low complexity and strong annotations, the description fails to resolve ambiguity with the sibling list_users_requests_following. The vague 'extended' parameter and absence of any usage context make the definition incomplete for reliable tool selection.

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 single parameter 'extended' is described only as 'Extended information to include in the response,' which is too vague to be actionable. With 0% schema description coverage and no enums, the agent still has no idea what values are valid or what extended information actually means.

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 follow requests' with the endpoint GET /users/requests/. It is clear about what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similar sibling list_users_requests_following.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like list_users_requests_following and create/delete_users_requests_by_id exist, but the description gives no selection criteria or context about whether this lists incoming, pending, or outgoing requests.

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