List PhishFort Documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral info (only about doc_type). Without annotations, this would be a 2, but with annotations, the bar is lower. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely short at one sentence, which is concise but at the cost of completeness. It could be expanded to include essential details without becoming verbose. The structure is minimal, so it scores a middle mark.

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?

With 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and a complex tool, the description is far too minimal. It omits pagination, filtering, sorting, and output details. Although an output schema exists externally, the description should still provide enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It fails to do so.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains that 'doc_type accepts comma-separated documented types,' which adds meaning for one parameter. The other nine parameters (q, page, limit, sort_by, etc.) are left unexplained, failing to provide necessary semantics for correct invocation.

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 document metadata, which is a clear action on a resource. However, it is vague—doesn't specify what types of documents or the tool's scope. It doesn't differentiate from sibling listing tools like phishfort_list_incidents. A more specific verb and resource description is needed.

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, or any prerequisites. With many sibling tools for listing (incidents, capabilities, etc.), the description should indicate that this is for listing documents specifically and suggest when to use other tools like phishfort_get_document for a single document.

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