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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the output includes review status and OCR feedback categories, which is useful but does not go much beyond the annotation-provided safety profile. No contradiction.

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?

A single sentence leads with the action, specifies the meaningful output fields, and adds a concise downstream instruction. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description provides enough context to invoke it and act on the result. It would benefit from explicitly naming the sibling upload-link tool, but that is a minor gap.

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 100% and the single applicationId parameter is documented as a UUID value wrapper. The description implies the documents belong to an application but does not add detail beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States the specific verb 'Lists' and the resource 'uploaded identity documents' with a clear output focus on review status and OCR feedback. This distinguishes it from siblings like itin_list_itin_applications and itin_get_itin_application.

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?

Provides actionable workflow guidance: relay feedback and offer a fresh upload link before submitting for review. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the 'before submitting for review' cue makes the intended usage clear.

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