mma_list_requests

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

The description discloses that it is a read operation (browse) and supports filtering. It also instructs how to respond to a request by pointing to a URL, which adds behavioral context. No annotations exist, so the description carries the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then adding filtering and action guidance. No filler words; each sentence adds 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?

For a simple list tool with three optional params and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and expected action. It could mention the structure of returned requests, but the instruction to point to a URL compensates.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly states that the three parameters (status, category, tag) are for filtering. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema names, although it does not detail values beyond the enum in 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: 'Browse the demand side — things people are actively looking for.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like mma_create_listing or mma_search by focusing on listing requests. The verb 'browse' and resource 'requests' are specific.

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 when the agent needs to see active requests, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like mma_search. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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