list_client_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists documents and supports filtering, but doesn't describe what 'list' entails (e.g., pagination, format, sorting), permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List documents associated with clients') and briefly mentions filtering capabilities. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from options).

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and read functionality. It lacks details on return values, pagination, error handling, and usage context. While the purpose is clear, the description doesn't compensate for the missing structured information, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the filterable fields (client ID, title, category), but doesn't provide additional context like default behaviors or interaction between filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('documents associated with clients'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_clients' or 'list_partner_documents' by specifying the client-document relationship, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'list_clients' and 'list_partner_documents' available, there's no indication of when this tool is preferred or how it relates to them.

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