ic_list_documents

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it returns metadata only, and it states a concrete failure mode ('Returns FeatureDisabled if the district has the module turned off'). This gives the agent useful expectations about response semantics and error conditions.

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?

Two sentences carry the full definition with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, the sibling routing is included, and the error condition is stated compactly.

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 simple read-only list tool with annotations and a partially documented schema, the description covers the essential behavior, the metadata-only return nature, and the feature-toggle error. It does not detail the exact response shape, but without an output schema the examples and sibling distinction provide sufficient calling context.

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 33%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented district and studentId parameters. It implies studentId via 'a student's available documents' but gives no guidance for district values. The view parameter is already well covered by the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level value.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List a student's available documents' with clear examples (report cards, transcripts, schedules). It also distinguishes itself from the file-fetching sibling by stating 'Returns metadata only — use ic_download_document to fetch the file.'

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 explicitly routes file-fetching use to ic_download_document, which clearly separates metadata listing from content download. It doesn't enumerate exclusions for the other list siblings, but the resource type and 'metadata only' qualifier make the intended context clear.

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