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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key behavior beyond the schema: 'including deleted ones (deleted: true)' and that '0' means everything. It also scopes the operation to the tenant. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or read-only status, but 'List' and the schema's cursor hint cover the most important remaining aspects.

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 tightly written sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior is expressed clearly in one clause. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 list tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it defines the two calling patterns and the key behavioral nuance. The only real omission is a description of the return structure, but the schema's reference to 'next_cursor' indirectly implies the shape, so the gap is minor.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'since' semantics more fully than the schema: it introduces the watermark source (host.docs.status), clarifies that 0 means everything, and surfaces the deleted-document behavior. This goes beyond what the parameter descriptions already state.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List documents in this tenant's document store.' It then distinguishes the tool's two operating modes (live snapshot vs. changed-since), which clearly separates it from the related docs.* siblings (get/put/delete/purge/status) without needing their schemas.

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 gives clear context for when to use each mode: omit 'since' for a live snapshot, provide 'since' (a watermark from host.docs.status) to get changes including deleted documents. It references the source of the watermark explicitly. It doesn't name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the two-mode guidance is strong enough for correct usage.

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