list_received_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that responses are paginated with page, last_page, and total — valuable since no output schema exists — but says nothing about default page size, sort defaults, or result caps.

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 no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded ahead of the response-shape note. Efficient, though the parenthetical type list could be tightened.

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 7-parameter list tool with no output schema and only readOnlyHint, the description covers resource scope and the pagination envelope, which is the main unknown an agent faces. It omits routing guidance versus sibling list/get tools, which is the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 71%, with q, sort, type, fieldset, and company_id already documented in the schema; page and per_page have no schema descriptions and gain no explanation here. The description only restates pagination concepts rather than adding semantics such as default per_page or maximum page behavior.

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 and resource ('Elenca documento ricevuto') and enumerates the covered document types (spesa, nota di credito passiva, DDT passivo), which separates it from list_issued_documents and list_receipts. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent when to choose this over list_pending_received_documents, get_received_document, or list_deleted_documents. The only implicit signal is the type enumeration, so usage must be inferred from the name.

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