proposals_list_documents_contracts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, filtering behavior, response format, or any limitations. It provides zero extra value 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?

The description is a single, short phrase that is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It lacks structure and does not front-load any useful details. It is not a well-formed sentence that earns its place; it's a placeholder.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not state what the list contains, how filtering works, or the relationship to templates. An agent has no idea what this tool returns or how to use it correctly, making it insufficient for any meaningful invocation.

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?

The input schema has descriptions for all 8 parameters, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for high coverage. However, it could have provided context like the default location or how status works, but it doesn't.

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 'List documents' is extremely vague and does not specify what kind of documents, the context (proposals, contracts), or how it differs from the sibling proposals_list_documents_contracts_templates. It essentially restates the action from the name without adding resource type or scope, providing no differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling proposals_list_documents_contracts_templates exists but is never mentioned, and no conditions or scenarios are provided to help an agent choose between them.

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