therapyportal_list_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine beyond-schema context: what fields come back per request and document, and a prompt-injection warning that returned text is third-party and must be treated as data. It omits pagination/result-size behavior, which matters for a listing tool against an open-world portal.

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, no redundancy: the first front-loads what is listed and what is returned, the second delivers the security caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 does the necessary work of describing return contents (status, date, instructions, portal_document_id) and the untrusted-content caveat, which is sufficient for correct invocation. Minor gap: no indication of ordering, completeness, or pagination for the listing.

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 100% and both params (view, status) have enums plus inline explanations, so the schema carries the full load. The description's mention of 'status' refers to returned request status rather than the filter parameter, and it says nothing about the view modes, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb (List) plus a well-enumerated resource (intake and consent forms, questionnaires, files sent for review) with a clear scope qualifier ('paperwork the practice sent through TherapyPortal'). It also states what each returned record carries, which makes it distinguishable from siblings such as therapyportal_list_forms and therapyportal_list_receipts without opening any schema.

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?

It routes the agent forward by naming therapyportal_download_document as the consumer of the returned portal_document_id, which implicitly tells the caller when to use this tool (to discover document IDs before downloading). It stops short of explicit exclusions — it never says how it differs from therapyportal_list_forms or when to prefer therapyportal_get_document_counts.

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