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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds one genuine trait — that only 'active' schemas are returned — plus the boundary 'Does not create schemas', but nothing about pagination or result volume. With annotations carrying the load, this is an adequate but modest addition.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the usage cue. 'Does not create schemas' is the weakest sentence — mild disambiguation rather than essential information — but it costs little.

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?

With zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is listed, the active-only filter, and when to call it. Nothing material is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs, and the empty schema is self-evident.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (extraction schemas) with a clear scope qualifier ('active ... saved in your connected Dokyumi organization'). It implicitly differentiates from dokyumi_extract_document by describing itself as a prerequisite step, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

'Use before extracting a document to choose a schema' gives explicit workflow context and effectively routes the agent to sequence this call ahead of dokyumi_extract_document. No exclusions or failure conditions are stated, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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