sigsci_search_requests

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

No annotations provided, and the description only mentions optional query filters. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or what happens when no query is given. The schema provides some details (page, limit) but the description adds no behavioral insight.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. However, it is very sparse for a 5-parameter tool; slightly more detail could improve utility without losing 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?

The description is too minimal given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations). It omits important context like query syntax, pagination, and result format, leaving agents underinformed.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value by stating 'optional query filters'. The baseline is 3; the description does not enhance parameter understanding 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 searches requests for a site with optional query filters, distinguishing it from get/list tools by emphasizing the search capability. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling sigsci_search_tools, which searches 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sigsci_get_request or sigsci_list_events. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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