spv_requests_list

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

There are no annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and the description does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. While listing requests implies a read operation, the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure means the agent cannot confidently assume non-mutating behavior.

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 a single, focused sentence that includes all essential details: the object being listed, the ordering, and the key fields returned. It contains no extraneous information or redundancy, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

The description provides the core purpose and output fields, but it omits contextual details such as pagination behavior, filtering options (though implied by parameters), or typical usage scenarios. Since there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent can expect, and while it is adequate for a basic list, it lacks depth.

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 description does not explain the parameters (page, limit, status) beyond what the schema already provides. Only companyId has a schema description, and the tool description adds no additional context about how these parameters affect the request or response. The 25% schema coverage leaves the other parameters semantically opaque.

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 clearly states that the tool lists requests sent to ANAF SPV for the company, sorted newest first, and specifies the returned fields (status, id_solicitare, archived answer document id). This unambiguously defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from other SPV-related tools.

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 such as spv_documents_list or spv_request_prepare. The description does not mention any conditions or contexts that would make this tool the preferred choice, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the name and description.

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