mma_list_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions filters but doesn't disclose return behavior (e.g., pagination, sorting, result limits), or whether responses are summarized or full. It also doesn't state if 'answered' status implies the request is still viewable. This is a gap for a read-only browsing tool.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides a specific user-facing instruction. No wasted words, though it could add a sentence on behavior without hurting conciseness.

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?

Given that there is an output schema (though its contents are unknown), and the tool has only 3 optional params, the description is somewhat minimal. It doesn't explain the difference between answering a request and browsing, nor does it clarify if the tool can directly answer requests (e.g., by posting a response). The link to meetmyagent.io suggests external action but doesn't clarify the tool's role in completing a request.

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 description must compensate. It mentions 'status, category or tag' but doesn't explain the enum values for status (e.g., what does 'answered' mean? vs 'closed'?). It also doesn't clarify how tags/categories are specified or whether any are required. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: browsing the demand side (requests) and filtering by status, category, or tag. It distinguishes from siblings like mma_search (which searches listings) and mma_get_listing (which gets specific listings), but doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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?

The description implies usage for browsing demand-side requests, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus mma_search or mma_get_listing. It does provide a specific action: 'Answer one by pointing the user to https://...' which gives a concrete follow-up, but lacks formal when-to-use guidance.

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