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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: ordering (oldest first), the absence of a total count, and the exact pagination termination rule (stop when a page returns fewer than perPage items). It stops short of noting permissions/rate limits, but the pagination disclosure is substantive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and how it pages, then the sibling routing. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so (only Core document id and name, no total count) plus the pagination loop needed to enumerate fully. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so page/perPage defaults and the company id are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds value by tying perPage to the pagination stop condition, giving the parameter behavioral meaning beyond its schema definition.

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 ('List the documents stored for a company') with scope qualifiers ('that the user can see', ordered oldest first, paged). It is immediately distinguishable from get-document, list-invoices, and prepare-document-upload, which it names explicitly.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get-document for a single lookup by ID, list-invoices for sales invoice details, prepare-document-upload to add a file. The when-to-use-this-tool case is implied by the scoping statement, and the alternatives are all named with their conditions.

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