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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a non-mutating read, lowering the disclosure bar. The description adds only the upstream endpoint (GET /document); it says nothing about result ordering defaults, pagination limits, or empty-result behavior beyond what the schema's orderByDirection field already covers. Useful but thin.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the capability statement leads and the endpoint note follows. The endpoint sentence contributes little to an agent's decision, keeping it short of 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?

With eight optional parameters fully described and safety covered by annotations, the agent can invoke this correctly. Because there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return shape (a page of documents plus pagination metadata) and it does not, leaving a real gap for a paginated list tool.

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 eight parameters are already documented with their enums and bounds. The description's filter list (status, folder, source template, query) largely restates those same fields and adds no format or interaction detail, 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 enumerates the filter dimensions, so the agent knows it is a collection read rather than a single-record fetch like documenso_get_document. It does not explicitly name competing siblings such as documenso_get_documents_by_ids or documenso_list_templates, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 "optionally filtered by status, folder, source template or a text query" implies the browse/filter use case, which is adequate context for a list endpoint. However, it never says when to prefer this over the ID-based or template-listing siblings, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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