List documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context like 'newest first' ordering and scope ('on this account'), which are not in the annotations or schema. No contradictions with annotations; openWorldHint=false aligns with the concept of listing documents in this account.

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 tight two-sentence summary, front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place: it states what, scope, ordering, and a practical usage hint. No filler or repetition.

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 listing tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description is complete. It covers what is listed, what is returned, ordering, and how to filter. The output schema handles return structure, and annotations handle safety. No significant gaps remain.

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%, with both `limit` and `query` described in the schema. The description's mention of using `query` for filtering by name is redundant with the schema's existing description, adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema already documents parameters.

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's purpose: listing EveryPage documents on the account, with specific details on ordering (newest first) and included data (share links and view counts). This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_file (specific file) or delete_file (mutation).

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 guidance on using the query parameter to filter by name, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use everypage_get_file instead for a single document). The tool's listing purpose is implied, but no when-not-to-use or alternative is stated.

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