List general documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by documenting the default filter behavior (period:this_year), the piped-value combination syntax for certain state fields, and the fact that some states are only applicable to purchase invoices/receipts. It does not describe pagination behavior beyond the param schema, but the annotations plus description are solid.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the resource definition, then packs the filter syntax and key constraints into a compact list. Every clause earns its place — the default period warning and the state applicability caveat are both high-value and not repeated elsewhere. No fluff, no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and four optional parameters, the description covers the critical decisions: what counts as a general document, how to narrow via filter, and the crucial default-period gotcha. The absence of an output schema means return-shape documentation isn't required, and the annotations cover safety. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior ('Moneybird defaults to period:this_year'), demonstrating the filter syntax with concrete examples ('20260101..20260131', 'state:open|paid'), and clarifying which filter values only apply to other document types. It still doesn't fully explain the 'reference' or 'contact_id' matching semantics, but the added examples and default disclosure elevate it above baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('general documents'), and defines what that resource is ('filed paperwork such as contracts and correspondence that carries a date and reference but no amounts'). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_typeless_documents, list_purchase_invoices, and list_receipts by clarifying what counts as a general document.

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 explicitly states the default behavior ('Moneybird defaults to period:this_year') and tells the user to pass an explicit period to look outside the current financial year. It also explains the state filter's limitation ('paid, late and pending_payment only apply to purchase invoices and receipts'), which prevents an agent from misusing the tool. The sibling list includes get_general_document for retrieval, but the core usage guidance is strong.

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