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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the newest-first ordering and that omitting type returns all, but it does not cover pagination behavior, return shape, or page size.

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 description is two short, front-loaded fragments with no wasted wording. The resource and ordering come first, followed immediately by the type filter semantics.

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 read-only account-wide listing tool, the description covers the resource, sort order, and type filter. However, it leaves pagination and returned document contents undocumented, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 must compensate for all three parameters. It explains the allowed type values and the default all-types behavior, but says nothing about limit or offset, which control pagination.

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 names the resource (the account's documents) and the ordering (newest first), so the basic purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this cross-type listing from type-specific siblings such as deck_list_slides or ads_list_pieces, so it falls short of a 5.

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 type filter and the phrase 'all if omitted' imply that this is the account-wide document listing tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_document or the type-specific list tools. No when-not conditions are stated.

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