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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the one-time import of pre-Files-view chats on the FIRST call (a surprising side effect for a read-shaped tool), the soft-delete semantics of the archived view, the ordering, and that results are metadata-only. That is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

Purpose, ordering, and the metadata-only constraint are front-loaded in the first sentence; the remaining sentences each add a distinct operational fact (session_count, auto-durability, first-call import, archived filter). No filler.

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 5-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, both boolean flags, the ordering, and the notable side effect. It stops short of describing the returned record shape beyond metadata-only and session_count, which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

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 already 80%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema for two parameters: archived is framed as the Files 'Archived' filter over soft-deleted records, and include_preview is framed as token-light for agents. limit/offset are left entirely to 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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List the authenticated user/org's saved documents, most-recently-updated first (metadata only — no document content)'. That ordering and metadata-only qualifier cleanly separates it from get_document_detail and the content-bearing siblings.

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 concrete conditions: 'Pass archived=true to browse the soft-deleted set', and tells agents to leave include_preview off to stay token-light. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., get_document_detail, list_session_documents) for the case of fetching content, so routing is implied rather than complete.

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