List documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results pair documents with their linked entities, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether unlinked documents are included — gaps that matter given there is no output schema.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the resource and its linkage are front-loaded and the optional filters follow. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a two-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the entity scope and the link-inclusive result shape, which is most of what an agent needs. Remaining gaps around result volume and pagination keep it from a 5.

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%, so both filters are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates them ('linked entity id or name text') without adding format, matching behavior, or multi-value semantics, so 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?

States a clear verb-implied resource ('Documents stored in Lendlord') and adds scope (linked entities, optional filters). It implicitly separates itself from the write-side siblings (upload_document, rename_document, delete_document, send_document) by being a read/list tool, but it never names an alternative outright.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the closest thing is the filter sentence, which is really parameter documentation. An agent gets no signal about how this differs from other read tools such as get_property or list_properties.

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