ic_list_documents

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by declaring that only metadata is returned and by disclosing the FeatureDisabled error state, which is not derivable from annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the routing pointer and the error condition. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does state 'metadata only' plus document examples, and it covers the error case. It could say slightly more about which metadata fields appear, but it is adequate for a simple list endpoint.

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 coverage is 33%: only 'view' is documented in the schema, and it is documented thoroughly (compact vs full, no field projection). The description adds nothing about 'district' or 'studentId' beyond their self-evident role as required identifiers, and does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a student's available documents') and enumerates concrete examples (report cards, transcripts, schedules). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling ic_download_document, which it explicitly names as the file-fetching counterpart.

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 routes the agent: metadata listing here, file retrieval via ic_download_document. It also names the failure condition (FeatureDisabled when the district module is off), so the agent knows when this call will not yield data.

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