List documents for an ECFS filing

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important behavioral trait that this is a metadata-only read that will not return file contents. It also enumerates what the response contains (filename, page count, byte size, OCR status, viewer location). It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior, so it is strong but not complete.

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 tight sentences: the first gives purpose and scope, the second gives return shape plus the pointer to the sibling tool. Everything is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by describing both what is returned and what is deliberately not returned, plus the alternative for the download case. An agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents id_submission including the comma-separated multi-ID behavior. The description's 'by submission ID' / 'one or more filings' phrasing largely repeats that, adding little beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('List the documents (attachments) associated with ECFS filings') with the scoping key (submission ID), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling ecfs_download_document. An agent can distinguish it from ecfs_get_filing and the download tool without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: this tool lists metadata, and 'Use ecfs_download_document to save a document's PDF' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. The 'not the document's file contents' exclusion is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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