list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does substantial work: it states sort order, non-vector search behavior, substring matching for author and title, case/accent insensitivity for the author filter, and inclusive year bounds. It does not state side effects or authentication, but the operation is presented as a read-only listing and output shape is covered by the output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a compact args list. Every line adds a distinct piece of information; no filler or restatement of the schema.

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 5-parameter, all-optional listing tool with an output schema, the description covers every invocation-relevant aspect: fields, filtering semantics, ordering, and limit behavior. Pagination is not needed beyond the limit parameter, and return values are structurally specified elsewhere.

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 all semantic weight falls on the description. It fully compensates by explaining every parameter: author substring with accent/case handling, inclusive year_min/year_max, title substring for text, and limit default. This is exactly the compensation needed at zero schema coverage.

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 opening line names a precise action and object: a bibliographic listing of corpus documents, sorted newest-to-oldest. The qualifier 'sans recherche vectorielle' also separates it from the sibling search_documents, so an agent can select it by exclusion.

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 conveys that this is a filtering/list operation, not a semantic one via 'sans recherche vectorielle,' which implies search_documents is the alternative. However, it never explicitly says 'use this when' or names the sibling, so the guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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