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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: pagination is expected, completion is separate from human review, and counts measure fragments rather than pages or cells. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, workflow guidance, and an important counting caveat without filler. The most identifying information is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes distinct value.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers what is listed, when to use it, and a key interpretation guardrail. There is no output schema, so some structural detail about the response is absent, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the sole projectId parameter is already well documented in the schema as a project/mapping ID, not a local path. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with the verb 'List' followed by a precise resource: 'authorized full-document sources', plus a detailed set of returned data elements (source keys, revisions, analyzed passages, extraction/OCR gaps). This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from other reads, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like read_requirement_coverage or read_document_provenance.

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 states a clear when-to-use rule: 'Use before analysis', and adds follow-up guidance to paginate every required source. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score, but it gives an agent a concrete temporal placement in the workflow.

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