list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds value by specifying the return fields and the workflow, but it omits details about pagination (startRecord, numberOfRecords), date filtering, and potential limitations. The description is not misleading, but it lacks some operational context that would be useful for an agent.

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 concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, the prerequisite, and the follow-up usage. The description is front-loaded with the primary action, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core workflow (folder → list → get/download) and specifies key return fields. Although there is no output schema, the description mentions what is returned. The schema handles parameter details, and the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention pagination or filtering behavior explicitly for full completeness.

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 the schema already fully documents all 6 parameters. The description lightly reinforces the folderId parameter by referencing get_document_folders, but adds no additional meaning about the parameters themselves, such as date formats or sort order behavior. This meets the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 action (list documents), specifies the resource (Yuki archive folder), and lists the return fields (document IDs, file names, dates, amounts). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with get_document_folders and get_document/download_document, making the tool's role in the workflow clear.

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?

Provides clear prerequisite guidance ('Call get_document_folders first to find the correct folder ID') and suggests follow-up usage with get_document/download_document. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_documents or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the 'when-not' or explicit alternative comparison needed for a 5.

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