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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: a hard throttling rule with the exact 429 consequence, and the meaning of the status codes (1/10/11/12/14) that govern which rows appear. It stops short of describing error handling or ordering.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource scope, then the payload shape, then the throttling caveat and endpoint. It is dense but every clause carries information; the long parenthetical status table is the only place it approaches a wall of text.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, the status-code meanings, and the conditional signed_docid. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only ordering/pagination behavior (next_offset) is left to the schema.

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 five filters (limit, offset, signed, orgtoken, filename_contains) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction notes for those parameters; its field list describes return values, not inputs.

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 ('Documents in the account's Active Documents tab') and enumerates the returned fields plus the status code table, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It never names the sibling oksign_list_signed_documents, so the boundary between 'active' and 'signed' listings must be inferred from the status codes.

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 rate-limit warning ('once every 3 minutes, 429 otherwise') implicitly tells the agent to call sparingly, and the filter params imply when to narrow. But there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' guidance against the many sibling list tools, nor any statement of when a caller should not use it.

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