list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does this well by disclosing the returned fields, the non-error empty-list behavior, and API page/page_size limits. It does not address authentication, rate limits, or side effects explicitly, although 'List' implies read-only operation.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a compact field list and a two-part Args section. Every sentence conveys necessary information; there is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 simple list endpoint with no output schema or annotations, the description is complete: it defines inputs and constraints, states the return summary shape, and clarifies an important edge case. An agent can select and invoke the tool without needing additional context.

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 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It does: docket_id is 'Exact docket ID' with an example, page is limited to 1-20, and page_size is limited to 5-250. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'List the documents filed in one Regulations.gov docket.' It names the exact scope (one docket) and enumerates the returned document-summary fields, which clearly separates this from siblings such as search_dockets and get_docket.

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 gives clear context for use: when you already have an exact docket_id and need the list of documents within that docket. It also provides the expected empty-list behavior for unmatched IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer search_dockets or get_docket, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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