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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the pagination strategy ('page with number_of_records and start_record') and the returned field set, but nothing about truncation behavior, batch limits, or ordering defaults beyond what the schema says.

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 resource and its payload, then filters, then paging — no wasted prose. The trailing 'Archive.Documents / DocumentsInFolder / DocumentsByType' string is cryptic service-operation jargon with no explained meaning, a minor blemish.

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 usefully enumerates the document fields returned (id, subject, type, contact, dates, amount), which is the main gap it needs to fill for a 9-parameter read tool. The missing piece is guidance on large result sets and how this differs from the search sibling.

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 every parameter including the offset/next_offset truncation note and the folder-vs-type exclusion is already documented in structured fields. The description's mention of folder, type, date range, and paging only restates schema content, earning the baseline 3.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Documents in the archive') and enumerates the returned fields plus the narrowing dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It never names the obvious sibling yuki_search_documents, so the boundary between plain listing and searching is left implicit.

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?

Implied usage is clear — list, optionally narrowed by folder, type, or creation date range — but there is no statement of when to prefer this over yuki_search_documents or when to fall through to yuki_get_document. The mutual exclusivity of folder_id and document_type is only stated in the schema, not here.

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