simplepractice_list_documents

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses ordering (newest first), the max page size, the meaning of hasMore, the caveat that counts over truncated rows may be incomplete, and an untrusted-content/prompt-injection warning about third-party text. That last point is high-value behavioral context no structured field carries.

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 tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: what the resource is, pagination semantics, and a safety warning. Front-loaded with the resource definition; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately describes the return shape (newest rows, page cap, hasMore) and adds a security caveat. For a single-optional-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 does explain that pageSize caps the page and is at most 50, and that the rows returned are the newest, but it omits the default value (50) and the exclusive-minimum constraint present in the 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?

States a specific resource with scope: 'Files the practice has shared through the Client Portal.' The Client-Portal framing distinguishes it from sibling simplepractice_list_document_requests, which covers requests rather than shared files.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource definition, and the pagination note ('hasMore: true means the page came back full') implicitly tells the agent when to page further, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like list_document_requests.

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