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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It covers authorization requirements (Bearer edit or friend token), token scoping behavior, visibility of private documents, offline response format ({status:offline}), and the returned fields. This is comprehensive transparency.

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?

The description is compact yet complete, front-loading the core purpose before covering auth, args, return format, and offline behavior in a few sentences. Every part contributes essential information with no fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides all required context: purpose, auth, filtering, pagination, return structure, and offline handling. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has no descriptions, so the description must explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: doc_type is a string filter with examples, limit is an integer 1-200 defaulting to 50, and offset defaults to 0. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Enumerate vault documents without FTS — for browsing by type or paginating,' using a precise verb ('enumerate') and resource ('vault documents') while explicitly distinguishing it from search functionality. The 'without FTS' qualifier clearly differentiates this from sibling search tools.

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 phrase 'for browsing by type or paginating' gives clear use cases, and 'without FTS' implies that search should be used for full-text queries. It also notes that friend tokens see only their scoped doc_types and access:private is invisible, guiding when access might be restricted. It does not explicitly name the sibling search tool, but the distinction is evident.

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