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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that already-received documents are included, which is a non-obvious behavior. It also implies a read-only list operation. It does not detail response format or edge cases, but for a simple list tool this is reasonable.

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?

The description is a single sentence, approximately 25 words, with the action front-loaded and a purpose clause. No wasted words; it efficiently conveys scope, default, and expected use case.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information: what it lists, the time window, the default, and the inclusion of received docs. It could mention result ordering or limit, but those are not critical for a straightforward listing 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 coverage is 100% for the single 'days' parameter, and the description echoes the default of 30 without adding new semantic meaning. The description does not explain the parameter beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists vendor documents expiring within a configurable time window, with the added nuance of including already-received documents. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_missing_docs (which focuses on missing docs) and search_vendor_docs (which is a general search).

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 provides clear context: it is for proactive renewal management ('so renewals can be requested before they lapse'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is sufficiently implied given the sibling tools. A higher score would require explicit 'use instead of X' guidance.

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