List uploaded documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are returned newest first and the state field reflects the accountant's processing workflow. It says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or what happens with empty filters.

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 compact sentences with no filler, front-loading what the resource is and its ordering before the filter hint. The Czech term in parentheses is minor clutter but serves disambiguation for a domain-specific resource.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a five-optional-parameter list tool the description covers identity, ordering and the most important filter; only sibling routing and the remaining filter semantics are left implicit.

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 80%, so the schema already documents page, limit, created_from and created_to, and the enum values are supplied. The description adds meaning only for state=unprocessed, leaving processed/error and the date filters to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 specific verb and resource ('Documents uploaded to UOL for the accountant'), plus the concrete content types (receipts, received invoices as PDF/images) and the sort order (newest first). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_uploaded_document or download_uploaded_document, though the list-vs-get contrast is implied by the name.

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?

Provides one concrete usage cue — 'state=unprocessed lists what the accountant has not processed yet' — which tells the agent when that filter matters. It gives no guidance on when to pick this over get_uploaded_document/download_uploaded_document, nor any prerequisites, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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