list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful non-schema fact — that results include frontend web URLs — but says nothing about read-only nature, ordering, pagination behavior, or rate limits, leaving a fair amount undisclosed for a fully unannotated tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence delivers a distinct piece of return-value information rather than restating the first.

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?

With 8 parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It partially compensates for the missing output schema by noting web URLs, but leaves filter-combination behavior and sibling routing unaddressed.

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%, including enum values and per-filter notes (cr, type, level, school), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('resources of a type'), so an agent knows this is a collection-listing operation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'search', 'get', or 'list_documents', which is the main gap keeping it from a 5.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus 'search' or 'get', no mention of prerequisites, and no stated constraints on combining filters. The only guidance is the word 'optional' about filters, which is inferred from the schema anyway.

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