list_documents

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses result ordering ('newest first'), the returned fields (doc_id, date, title, page count), and the auth profile ('Works without any API key'). It does not address result limits/pagination behavior or filtering semantics beyond the schema, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: what it lists, what it returns, then where to go next. The document-family enumeration is dense but each clause earns its place; no filler.

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 filtered list tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, ordering, return fields and workflow handoff adequately. Filtering specifics are delegated to the well-covered schema, which is acceptable.

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 83%, so the schema already documents query, date bounds, doc_type and language with examples and enum meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the 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 specific verb and resource ('List TCMB documents available locally') and enumerates the document families (MPC decisions, Inflation Reports, FSR, SMP) in both languages. An agent can distinguish it from search_series or grep_documents without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as the entry point ('Start here, then use get_document_outline / read_document / grep_documents'), which gives clear routing to follow-up siblings. It lacks explicit when-not conditions or a comparison against list_data_sources, so it stops short of a 5.

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