list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'list'), supports pagination (via 'page' and 'page_size' parameters), and emphasizes accuracy trade-offs between ID filters and free-text search. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides crucial usage guidelines, and every sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'IMPORTANT' note more smoothly.

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?

Given the complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description does well. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral context. The main gap is lack of output format details, but with no output schema, this is a minor omission in an otherwise thorough description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of parameters by listing filterable fields (title, correspondent, document type, tag, storage path, creation date) and clarifies that 'search' is for free-text when no field applies. It also implies that parameters like 'correspondent' expect IDs obtained from sibling tools. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'List and filter documents by fields such as title, correspondent, document type, tag, storage path, creation date, and more.' This is specific (verb+resource+scope) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_documents' by emphasizing field-based filtering versus free-text search.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It specifies to use sibling tools (e.g., 'list_tags') first to find IDs for filtering, and to use 'search' only for free-text when no field applies. It also warns that using correct IDs yields more accurate results, clearly differentiating from 'search_documents'.

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