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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's burden is reduced, but it adds almost no behavioral context beyond the annotations: no pagination or result-limit behavior, no ordering, no indication of what an attachment record contains. The only addition is the raw API endpoint mapping, which is not behavioral information.

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 short sentences with the action and scope front-loaded; nothing is padded. The second sentence is a bare REST mapping that is marginally useful but not essential, keeping it just under a 5.

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 simple read-only list tool with a single fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is close to adequate. However, as a list operation it leaves open whether results are paginated, capped, or ordered, and there is no output schema to answer that, so a clear gap remains.

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% and the single documentId parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameter (e.g., job/document id vs. template id) beyond what the schema already states.

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 the attachments on one document'), and the 'on one document' scoping makes it easy to distinguish from broad siblings like documenso_list_documents or documenso_get_document. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives — it never explains how this differs from documenso_get_document, which an agent might reasonably reach for when a caller wants a document's associated files. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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