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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already covering the safety profile, the description still adds genuine context: team access is re-evaluated per request, revocation affects search and originals/Markdown/OKF/ZIP downloads even with an existing session, and responses are private, no-store. Some sentences (sharing grants, publishing, owner-only sharing changes) describe adjacent tools rather than this listing call, which dilutes the relevance of an otherwise informative block.

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?

Six dense sentences follow the one-line purpose, and several read as pasted authorization policy rather than facts needed to invoke a list call (publishing semantics, API key grants, origin/CSRF checks). The purpose is front-loaded, but much of the remaining text does not earn its place for this tool.

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, so the description should carry the return-shape burden, yet it only says "list the documents" and says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or result fields (the cursor is only in the schema). Access prerequisites are covered thoroughly, but the tool's core listing contract is under-described for a 3-parameter, team-scoped call.

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%, so all three parameters (after, base_id, organization_id) are already documented in the schema, including the cursor and the 64-character ID format. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("List the documents in your base"), which is enough for an agent to know what the tool does. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical siblings list_base_documents and public_list_base_documents; the team scoping is only implied by the tool name and the access-policy text that follows.

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 explains team access mechanics but never states when to choose this tool over list_base_documents, public_list_base_documents, or team_get_base_document. An agent must infer the selection rule from the name alone, which is a real gap given how many parallel list/get variants exist.

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