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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination, result size, or what documents are included, and the duplicated path sentence contributes no behavioral context.

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 output is two identical sentences back-to-back plus an operation ID and a cross-reference, so half the text is pure duplication. What remains is not front-loaded with any actionable meaning.

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 no output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and a nested `query` object, the description carries the full burden of explaining inputs and returns — and it does neither. An agent must call describe_operation first to use this tool safely.

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%, and the description gives no meaning for either parameter. It does not explain that `id` is the counterparty identifier (path param) nor what the arbitrary `query` object accepts (filters, pagination, sorting), only pointing at describe_operation for the underlying request 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?

The description is the URL path repeated verbatim twice, which restates the tool name and title rather than describing the operation in prose. The path does implicitly encode 'list documents for a counterparty id', but nothing states what kind of documents, what the response contains, or how this differs from sibling document tools like get_contracts_by_id_documents or get_leases_by_id_documents.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling document endpoints (contract documents, lease documents, site documents, negotiation documents). The only routing hint is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which is about schema discovery, not about choosing this tool.

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