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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the access-scoping detail ('accessible Docs'); it says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape, though the schema documents the cursor. Modest added value on top of rich annotations.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the workflow tip. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is of secondary relevance to selecting this tool.

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 and pagination need not be re-explained; the description correctly covers purpose, filter scope, and the follow-up get_doc step. Only the absence of explicit when-to-use versus search leaves a small gap for a read-only listing tool with five all-optional params.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (after, limit, order, query, projectId) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description's mention of 'project and title' filtering faintly echoes projectId and query but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 and resource ('List accessible Docs') plus the filter scope ('optionally filtering by project and title'), which is enough to distinguish it from get_doc and the other list_* siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative list-like tool (search), so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 only routing guidance is a downstream workflow tip ('Read a Doc with get_doc before editing its contents'), which implies list->get_doc->edit but never says when to prefer this tool over search or the other list_* tools. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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