reqs_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and succeeds. It discloses that missing IDs are silently skipped, documents the historically surprising limit behavior (0 means no results, negative errors, default page size, ids batch widening), and explains status filter semantics such as using 'deferred' to find blocked requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the key sibling distinction, then uses a tight arg list. Every parameter earns its entry, and even lengthier notes on limit behavior are justified because the behavior is genuinely non-obvious and historically inconsistent.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and complex behavioral edge cases, this description is complete. It covers all parameters, gives filtering values, explains missing-ID handling, pagination defaults, and the sibling fallback. The output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It documents all 11 parameters with concrete semantics, enum-like values for status/priority/group_by, substring matching for section/source, and detailed limit/offset behavior 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search and filter requirements.' It clearly defines the tool's scope and differentiates it from the sibling reqs_get by explicitly saying reqs_query returns missing IDs silently absent while reqs_get errors on a strict single-ID miss.

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?

States when to use the tool versus an alternative: 'For a strict single-ID fetch that errors on miss, use reqs_get.' This gives an agent a concrete decision rule between two closely related tools.

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