list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation returns a paginated list with specific fields and that filters are optional. This gives a good picture of expected behavior, though it does not explicitly state read-only nature or error conditions. For a listing tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact two-sentence text that front-loads the main purpose, then details filters and return fields. It is efficient and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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 mentions pagination and return fields, but the schema-description mismatch leaves a major gap: it does not clarify that filters cannot actually be passed. Pagination mechanics (page size, next page) are also omitted. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should have been more thorough and accurate to be complete.

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?

The description claims optional filters for type, status, and date range, but the input schema is completely empty. This is a critical mismatch: an agent cannot pass these filters per the schema, making the description misleading. The baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description adds filter details that are not supported, actively harming usability. It fails to align with the actual 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 lists issued tax documents, specifies optional filters with concrete DTE type codes and meanings, and describes the returned fields. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like list_purchases (purchases vs issued) and get_document (single vs list).

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 that it lists issued documents with filters, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, though the scope is well-defined. No exclusions are stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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