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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral details: the ordering behavior (sidebar vs relevance) and the 'user can read' permission scope, which are useful beyond the schema. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds context about the tool's behavior.

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 sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose and ordering behavior are front-loaded, followed by a compact list of filter options. Every word earns its place.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios: listing all readable docs, ordering, and filtering. It doesn't mention pagination, default exclusion of archived docs (though there's an includeArchived param), or return format, but these are not critical given the annotations cover safety and the schema documents parameters. It's reasonably complete.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the relevance-ordering effect of the query parameter and mentions the filter dimensions (project, collection, unfiled) which align with the params, but it doesn't go into syntax or format details. This is a slight addition over the schema, but not substantial.

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 action (list documents) and the resource (documents this user can read), plus ordering criteria (sidebar or relevance) and filters. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_doc_collections and list_doc_comments by focusing on the document list itself.

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 gives context on ordering and filter options, and implies it's the right tool for retrieving readable documents. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'use search_issues for issues' or 'use get_doc for a single document.' It provides clear usage context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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