List received documents (expenses)

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the safety profile is already known. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing the default type (expenses) and the pagination behavior (check current_page/last_page/total). These details go beyond the annotation and help the agent understand response structure and defaults.

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 concise and front-loaded. It uses three short sentences, each adding new information: the list of document types, the default type, and pagination guidance. No word is wasted, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides the key context: the resource type, available document types, default behavior, and pagination metadata fields. While it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., array of documents), it is implied by the title and the pagination hint, and the schema covers all parameters. This is adequate for the complexity level.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so every parameter is already documented. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; even the 'Defaults to expenses' note repeats the schema's default for 'type'. Therefore, a baseline score 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 states the exact action: 'List received documents for a company' and enumerates the document types (expenses, passive credit notes, passive delivery notes, self invoices). This specifies the resource and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_issued_documents or get_received_document.

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 context (for a company, defaults to expenses, paginated) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_received_document for single documents or list_issued_documents for issued documents. Usage is implied by the tool name and listing of types, but no exclusions or alternative guidance are given.

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