List Shift Coverage Requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond the annotations: only *active* requests are returned, implying resolved/filled requests are excluded. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result volume for an openWorld read.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and the scope qualifier placed before the resource. It is efficient, though nearly at the edge of under-specification.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description needn't explain return values. However, 'active' is never defined (pending? unclaimed?), and there is no note on pagination or whether the list is bounded — a small but real gap for an agent deciding whether one call suffices.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains schedule_id and its URL interpolation. The description adds only the loose phrase 'for a schedule', which is redundant with the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (List) and resource (shift coverage requests) scoped to a schedule, with the qualifier 'active' narrowing the result set. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_shift_coverage_request, so an agent must infer list-vs-fetch from the name alone.

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 on when to prefer this over get_shift_coverage_request or other schedule-scoped siblings (get_schedule_shifts, list_override_shifts). The phrase 'for a schedule' contextualizes but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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