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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, but the verb 'List' plus 'currently available' implies a non-destructive read of a dynamic set. It says nothing about pagination, result size, or ordering, which are the behavioral traits that matter for a listing endpoint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier ('currently available') is placed where it is most useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and a zero-parameter read tool has a low bar. The only gap is that it never positions itself relative to its siblings, which an agent would need when deciding between listing and searching.

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?

Zero parameters are declared (schema coverage 100%), so there is no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline of 4 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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (source documents), and scope (Sortition knowledge base), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like search_knowledge or get_document_page, but the verb makes the enumeration intent unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The agent must infer that this is the bare enumeration tool versus search_knowledge for filtered queries, which is exactly the distinction that needs stating.

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