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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the response excludes content and returns only metadata and embedding state, and uploads are out-of-band via the portal. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or the shape of the metadata.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return-value constraint, then the out-of-band upload note. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so at a high level ('metadata and embedding state'). For a simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters, that is nearly complete; only pagination mechanics and the specific metadata fields are left implicit.

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% and all three parameters (limit, starting_after, include_inactive) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no pagination or filtering semantics beyond that, so the 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 documents') and immediately scopes what a document is ('Uploaded PDFs and text files'), which distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like list_posts or list_contacts. It does not explicitly name get_document as the content-fetching alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Content is not returned' hints that get_document is needed for content, and 'Upload happens in the portal' tells the agent there is no upload tool to look for. Neither is framed as explicit when-to-use guidance or an alternative recommendation.

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