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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing permission-based scoping (owners see every non-deleted document, members only see created/collaborated documents), the returned field set, and explicitly that the document body is excluded, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core list operation and scope, then layers in visibility rules, return fields, and filters. Every sentence contributes relevant information without redundancy or 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?

Given five optional parameters, an output schema, and existing annotations, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: who sees what, what fields come back, what is omitted, and what filters exist. Nothing required for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all five parameters documented in the schema, including defaults, max, enum values, and case-insensitive matching. The description only restates that title, status, and render type filters are optional, so it adds little beyond the structured schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List documents') plus the scoping context ('in the connected workspace that this user can open'). It is immediately distinguishable from the unrelated siblings (create_proposal, get_profile, set_website), none of which list documents.

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 explains the visibility model for owners versus members and enumerates the optional filters, so an agent knows what it will get back and how to narrow results. It does not, however, state any when-not-to-use condition or name an alternative tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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