List issued documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: pagination behavior (check current_page/last_page/total) and the one-type-per-call restriction with a default type. This informs the agent about response structure and call 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, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('List issued documents'), and includes only essential operational hints (type default, pagination). No redundant or filler content—every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with 7 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is listed, the type constraint, and the pagination response fields. It does not mention return fields or alternatives, but the schema and annotations fill most gaps, making it adequately complete for a list operation.

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%, with all 7 parameters documented in detail. The description itself only reiterates the default to invoices and mentions pagination, which adds minimal new parameter-specific meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 tool lists issued documents, enumerates common document types (invoices, credit notes, quotes, proformas, receipts), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_received_documents and get_issued_document. The verb 'List' plus resource 'issued documents' with scope 'for a company' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: one document type per call (defaults to invoices), paginated results requiring checking current_page/last_page/total. It does not explicitly mention when to use get_issued_document for a single document or list_received_documents for received documents, so it lacks explicit alternatives but gives solid operational guidance.

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