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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds substantial behavioral context: newest-first ordering, 20-per-page pagination, cursor handling, conditional fields (`text: false`, `pages`, classification, Court abstract), and the relation to `fetch`. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide and does not contradict them.

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, then compactly covers filters, pagination, return shape, and next step. Every sentence adds necessary operational detail, and the structure makes the information easy to scan. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 the tool has no output schema and 8 optional parameters with no schema descriptions, the description is complete enough: it explains the return fields, conditional fields, pagination behavior, and how to proceed to `fetch`. An agent has sufficient information to call and interpret results correctly without needing external docs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it largely does: it names all eight parameters, notes they are optional, says one or comma-separated multiple values are allowed, and even gives the category enumeration. The remaining gap is the lack of value format specifics for `kind`, `family`, `sector`, `topic`, and date formats for `published_from`/`published_to`, but the 'Filters as in `search`' pointer and the explicit parameter list still make the tool usable.

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 opens with 'List documents newest first, without a query', which is a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes this from query-based sibling `search`. The examples and filter list reinforce that the tool is a filterable list, not a full-text search or a single-document fetch.

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 clearly conveys the primary use case: listing documents by filters without a natural-language query, with pagination and a handoff to `fetch` ('Next: fetch one'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer `search` over this tool beyond the phrase 'without a query', nor does it list exclusions, so it stops just short of full 5-level guidance.

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