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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is to add semantics beyond those flags. It does: only completed submissions are returned, abandoned submissions are excluded, and short pages are intentionally not the end of the list. This is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope, differentiation, output usage, exclusion behavior, and pagination caveat are all present without fluff. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and structural markers like 'PAGINATION' make it easy to parse.

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 list tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, this definition is complete. It names related tools for consuming the documentId, explains the exclusion case, and fully specifies the pagination contract. Nothing needed for an agent to select and call the tool 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining how to use offset/nextOffset ('follow nextOffset until it is null') and warning against stopping at a short page, which directly improves correct invocation of the pagination parameters.

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') and a precise resource ('completed documents a public link has produced'), and immediately differentiates itself from list_documents, which covers documents sent to named recipients. An agent can clearly tell this tool from its siblings without opening 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?

It explicitly explains when to use this tool (for public-link submissions) and what it is not (not part of list_documents). It also gives actionable routing guidance: each documentId can be passed to get_document, get_signed_document_url, and get_document_field_values. Pagination behavior is fully specified.

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