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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that filtering is by type, source, category, or template, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, or whether the response is a list of document summaries versus full documents. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It earns its place by naming the filter dimensions, though it could have added a note about pagination without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the core listing purpose and filter dimensions, but given the nested filter object and pagination parameters, a bit more context about how filters combine or how pagination works would improve completeness. It is adequate but not rich.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. The description names the filter dimensions (type, source, category, template) which maps to the filter object's properties, but it does not explain pageSize or pageToken semantics, nor the nested UUID wrapper structure. It adds some meaning but leaves gaps.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a company's documents') and enumerates filter dimensions (type, source, category, template). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like documents_get_document or documents_list_user_templates; the resource scope is clear enough that an agent can infer the distinction.

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 implies usage context: it is for listing documents with optional filters. It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as documents_list_user_templates or document_template_list_templates, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but no explicit guidance is provided.

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