list_correspondents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates that the operation lists correspondents and includes document counts, and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose caveats such as whether correspondents with zero documents appear, pagination, or ordering behavior. These are minor for a simple parameterless list, but the description is still minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element—'all', 'correspondents', and 'document counts'—adds meaningful scope and result information.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool. The only notable absence is usage-selection guidance relative to sibling tools like stats or search_documents, which is covered separately but slightly weakens overall context.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so seedescription cannot add parameter-level detail. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, the description is sufficient because there are no arguments to explain or disambiguate.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all correspondents') and adds a distinctive detail ('with document counts') that separates it from sibling list tools like list_tags and list_document_types. An agent can immediately understand what this tool returns and who it is for.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related tools such as stats, search_documents, or list_tags. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, so the agent must infer selection from the tool name and basic wording.

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