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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds output-shape information (ids grouped by document type) and the underlying endpoint POST /api/xml/3.0/document/getidlist. It does not mention rate limits or how large the grouped result can get, but it goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core scope, followed by the chaining instruction and the raw endpoint. No filler or restated title 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results, and it does so by naming the grouping categories. Paging is delegated to the schema. A little more on the reply structure (per-type lists plus paging) would make it complete for a 5-parameter 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 year, month, limit, offset, and company_program_id are all documented in the schema, including cross-references to saldeo_list_companies and paging.next_offset. The description only restates 'one company in one month folder' without adding format or edge-case guidance, so 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 with scope: 'List the ids of all documents of one company in one month folder, grouped by type'. It also enumerates the grouping categories and points to saldeo_get_documents_by_ids, which separates it from saldeo_list_invoice_ids and saldeo_search_documents.

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?

'Feed the ids to saldeo_get_documents_by_ids' gives a clear usage context: this is a two-step id-retrieval tool, not a content fetcher. It does not state when to prefer this over saldeo_search_documents or explain that it returns no document bodies, so explicit exclusions are missing.

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