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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it is 'bounded' (paginated), 'newest-first' (ordering), and excludes specific fields (content, embeddings, prompts, org ids, arbitrary metadata). This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the response scope without contradiction.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then lists exclusions. There is no redundant wording; every clause adds value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional params) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: ordering, bounds, and field exclusions. It does not describe pagination mechanics (cursor) but those are in the schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly; a small gap is not mentioning that the list is limited to a single page, but 'page' implies that.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond implying a 'bounded' limit, but the high schema coverage means the description is not required to compensate. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('support-document metadata'), and scope ('bounded newest-first page' in the authenticated Supovia organization). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search by excluding content and arbitrary metadata, making it clear this is a metadata-only listing tool.

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 indicates when to use it: to list a paginated page of document metadata. It implies this is for list operations, but does not explicitly name alternatives like search_documents or get_document, so it lacks exclusions. The context is clear but not fully explicit about when not to use it.

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