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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is narrower. It adds real behavioral detail: folderId is null when the doc sits at the project root, and the workspace defaults to the credential's when workspaceId is omitted. Only pagination/result-size behavior is missing.

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?

Front-loads what is listed and what comes back, then handles the two parameters and the folderId null case in tight parenthetical asides. Every sentence carries information; only the parenthetical cross-references add slight density.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields. It covers both optional parameters, the default workspace behavior, and the null-folder case, which is everything an agent needs to call this 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: projectId is an optional project filter, workspaceId is the workspace to operate in with a stated default from the credential. Both parameters gain meaning not present in the bare schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Lista los documentos de proyecto') and enumerates the returned fields (id, título, projectId, folderId, position), which distinguishes it clearly from get_doc (single doc) and list_doc_folders (folder tree).

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?

Explains that projectId is an optional filter, that workspaceId selects the workspace and falls back to the credential's workspace, and routes the agent to list_workspaces and list_doc_folders for related lookups. It does not state when to prefer get_doc or save_doc, but the usage context is otherwise explicit.

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