List documents for an ECFS filing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns metadata (filename, page count, byte size, OCR status, viewer location) and explicitly states it does not return file contents, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any error behavior. The description is honest about its read-only nature but lacks depth on operational constraints.

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 two sentences, both dense with information. It front-loads the core action and resource, then specifies the return type and its exclusion. No wasted words; every phrase contributes to understanding.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, what it returns, and what it does not return. It does not mention limitations like maximum number of IDs, pagination, or error handling, but given the low complexity, these are minor omissions. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter (id_submission) with format (comma-separated) and purpose. The description adds context by saying 'one or more ECFS filings' and reiterates 'by submission ID', but this adds little beyond the schema. Since coverage is 100%, the description does not need to compensate, and the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the action (list documents), the resource (attachments of ECFS filings), and the scope (by submission ID). It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by specifying that it returns metadata, not file contents, which aligns with the function name 'search_documents' and distinguishes it from tools like ecfs_get_filing or ecfs_search_filings.

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: use this when you have submission ID(s) and need document metadata. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous given the sibling list. A small gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to prefer ecfs_get_filing over this tool for a single filing's documents.

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