query_documents

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavior (document content is excluded by default) plus the custom_field_query grammar. It omits pagination behavior, result shape, and auth/permission requirements, so significant behavioral ground is left uncovered.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage, syntax detail, and a closing caveat. Sentences are dense and mostly earn their place, though the two 'prefer top-level arguments' statements feel slightly redundant.

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 17-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, one behavioral caveat, and query grammar. It still leaves the majority of the parameters and the pagination/return behavior unexplained, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 only 12% across 17 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains custom_field_query leaf/group syntax and paperless_filters purpose well, but the many first-class args (tag, correspondent, document_type, ordering, page_size, date bounds) remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 specific verb+resource ('Query documents') and scopes it to the full-text engine plus structured Paperless filters, routing the agent to get_document_content for text. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very similar siblings list_documents and search_documents.

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?

Explicitly says to use it for complex filtering, custom field conditions, and undocumented /api/documents/ parameters, and to prefer dedicated top-level arguments when available. It lacks any exclusion against the closest alternatives (search_documents, list_documents), leaving the primary routing decision to inference.

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