list_archive_documents

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description owes less here. It does add a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: the response is paginated and carries page, last_page, total. It says nothing about filtering semantics, defaults, or result volume, but for a read-only list tool the added pagination note is a reasonable contribution.

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 with zero padding, front-loading purpose before the response shape. The terseness is a coverage problem, not a verbosity problem, so it scores well here.

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 six parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and four same-resource siblings (get/create/update/delete_archive_document plus other list_* families), the description does not give enough to call the tool confidently. The pagination note partly substitutes for the missing output schema, but scope, filtering intent, and archive-vs-other-document boundaries are left unexplained.

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 67%, which puts the baseline at 3. The description mentions only page (one of the parameters undocumented in the schema) and the pagination response fields; it adds no meaning for q, sort, fieldset, per_page or company_id beyond what the schema already states.

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?

"Elenca documento d'archivio" names a specific verb (list) and a specific resource (archive document), which matches the sibling naming convention get_archive_document / create_archive_document. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the many other list_* tools (list_received_documents, list_issued_documents, list_deleted_documents), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which list applies to its case.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing about when to prefer it over list_received_documents or list_deleted_documents, and no prerequisite or scope hints. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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