spv_requests_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — newest-first ordering and the shape of the returned records including the status lifecycle — but says nothing about pagination defaults, result caps, or behavior when the company has no SPV sync configured.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource, then layers scope, ordering, and payload. It is dense but every clause carries information; a slightly cleaner split between 'what it does' and 'what it returns' would read better.

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 no output schema, the description does some of the return-value work by naming the key fields, but it omits pagination behavior and the fact that page/limit/status are inputs — meaningful gaps for a four-parameter list endpoint. The essential purpose is conveyed, but the calling contract is only half described.

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 only 25% — only companyId is documented, and its env-var override note lives in the schema, not the description. The description never mentions page, limit, or that status is a filterable input parameter; the status values are presented only as returned fields, which can mislead an agent into thinking no filtering is available.

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+resource: lists SPV requests sent to ANAF for the company, with ordering ('newest first') and the fields returned (status, id_solicitare, archived answer document id). It is clearly distinct from spv_documents_list by being about requests rather than documents, though it never names that sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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 only implied by the listing nature of the tool; there is no statement of when to use this versus spv_documents_list, spv_request_prepare, or spv_request_types, and no mention of prerequisites such as an active ANAF token or synced company. The agent must infer the workflow from the name.

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