list_pending_or_problem_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no behavioral context. It does not conflict with annotations but also does not elaborate on what 'need attention' means or any side effects.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary details about parameters and usage. It earns its place but could be more informative without being verbose.

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 many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the criteria for 'need attention', the role of parameters, or how it differs from similar listing tools. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates, but the description still falls short.

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 0% (parameters have no descriptions). The tool description does not mention any parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and types, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 states it lists fiscal documents needing attention, which is a clear verb-resource pair. However, 'need attention' is vague and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aruba_search_invoices or specific filters, though the name helps.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., aruba_search_invoices, aruba_find_received_invoices). The description does not specify context or exclusions.

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