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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful behavioral detail: scope to the user's created documents, newest-first ordering, and filter dimensions. It does not mention pagination behavior or response shape, but for a read-only list operation that is a minor gap.

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 next-step routing, and it is not overly long. The German and English sections duplicate each other, which adds some redundancy, but it remains compact enough for an agent to parse quickly.

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 9-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main scope, sort order, filters, and workflow links. It could be more complete by stating that it returns summaries (via the document_get hint) or describing the remaining parameters, but it is sufficiently complete for selection and basic invocation.

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 only 44% schema description coverage, the description helps by naming filter categories (type, client, recipient, referenced document) that map to documentType, mandantennummer, recipientQuery, and referencesDocumentId. However, it leaves several parameters (since, referencesNumber, reasoning) semantically uncovered and does not clarify the distinction between referencesNumber and referencesDocumentId.

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 names a specific verb ('Listet/Lists'), the resource ('deine erzeugten Dokumente / documents you created'), the concrete document types, and the ordering ('neueste zuerst'). It also names sibling tools document_get and document_create as next steps, so an agent can distinguish listing from fetching or creating.

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?

It gives clear context: use this tool to list/filter created documents, then follow up with document_get for full payloads or document_create for follow-up documents. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative list tools like letter_list, but the next-step routing provides adequate guidance.

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