get_filing_options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description needn't restate it. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the exact payload shape (id + name, plus is_inbox_tag on tags and data_type on custom fields) and by framing this as a single aggregate call meant to avoid repeated discovery queries. It stops short of describing result size or batching limits, so a 5 isn't warranted.

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, densely packed but front-loaded: the scope and payload come first, the usage instruction second, and the alternative-routing clause last. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and each clause carries distinct information.

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 present, the description compensates by naming every returned entity type and its fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to consume the result. Combined with the annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the definition is complete for a zero-parameter aggregation tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly spends its words on the return payload instead of parameter behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Everything a document can be filed under, in one call') and then enumerates the exact entity types returned: tags, correspondents, document types, storage paths, and custom fields, including the per-item fields (id + name, is_inbox_tag, data_type). This clearly distinguishes it from the single-entity listers among its siblings.

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 states the trigger condition explicitly ('Call this once before assigning metadata so you choose from the complete set instead of guessing'), names the downstream consumers of the returned ids ('update_document or edit_documents_bulk'), and routes the agent elsewhere when the goal differs ('For matching rules or document counts use list_tags / list_correspondents / list_document_types / list_storage_paths'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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