gorelo_list_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data and the description adds nothing on that axis. It also says nothing about the notable behavioral defaults that exist (archived excluded unless statusIds given, default page size of 50, out-of-range page sizes rejected rather than clamped) – though those live in the schema, the description contributes no context beyond restating the name.

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?

It is a single short sentence with zero waste, which is structurally clean, but it is concise through under-specification rather than economy – the brevity leaves the reader without any orientation for a 16-filter query tool.

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 tool with 16 optional filters and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify the document scope (client vs internal vs both) and the default archived exclusion. Neither is present, and the one sentence present mislabels the corpus as the service provider's own documents.

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%, so all 16 parameters are self-documenting with defaults, enums-by-convention and rejection semantics. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no parameter meaning of its own, and its 'service provider's documents' framing slightly undercuts the clientIds/isInternal scoping the schema exposes.

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 gives a verb ("Lists") and resource ("documents"), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, "the service provider's documents" is vague and arguably misleading: the schema exposes clientIds and isInternal, showing both client and internal documents are returned. It also does nothing to distinguish this from sibling readers like gorelo_get_document or gorelo_list_document_versions.

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 guidance on when to use this list endpoint versus gorelo_get_document for a single document, or versus gorelo_list_document_versions. No prerequisites, no mention of what happens when filters are omitted, no exclusions.

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