legal_list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (required/filled state, linked page), and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not state permissions, pagination, or whether any side effects occur.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It puts the operation and resource first and then names the returned fields 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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and implies its read-only nature. It omits pagination/ordering details and explicit permission requirements, but those are relatively minor for this scope.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'site' parameter, including a reference to list_sites. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that schema text, which is the baseline 3 when the schema already documents the parameter.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (legal document types) and adds scope (all) plus returned fields. It is clear enough to distinguish from legal_get_document and legal_put_document by plurality and operation, but it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it is not.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. An agent can infer that this is a listing operation, but there is no explicit routing against alternatives such as legal_get_document or legal_status.

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