ms_get_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: the sum field is in kopecks, the rubles conversion parameter, and the filter syntax example. No contradictions.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the docstring-style argument list. No waste.

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 the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all inputs, output format, and behavioral details (filter example, rubles default). The annotations complement it well. An agent has sufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: doc_type lists valid values, limit/offset for pagination, filter gives a concrete example, and rubles explains conversion. The return JSON structure is also described.

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 'List a role document by type', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ms_create_document or ms_delete_document which handle mutations. The mention of 'Document total in sum (kopecks)' adds precision.

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 explains arguments, pagination, and filtering but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many document- and listing-related siblings, explicit guidance would help. The information is still useful but not comparative.

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