doc_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail — that text hits include page numbers — which helps the agent chain calls. It says nothing about result volume, pagination, or truncation behavior for a limit-capped list.

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 with no filler, and the follow-up-call hint is front-loaded alongside the purpose. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations fully cover the safety profile. The description supplies the chaining hint that ties it to doc_text/doc_page. Remaining gaps (limit semantics, when to prefer sibling doc tools) are minor.

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 50%: the query parameter is richly documented in the schema, but limit is not. The description adds no parameter-level guidance (e.g., search scope, how query matches) beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb pair and resource: 'List or search the documentation library.' An agent can tell this is the entry-point query tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with doc_fetch or doc_sections, so it falls short of full sibling 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?

It implies the intended workflow by noting that text hits carry page numbers so a following doc_text or doc_page call can proceed directly — useful routing context. However, it never states when to prefer this over doc_fetch, doc_sections, or doc_facts, so usage is only implied.

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