list_documents

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the default output format (leading count line, one-line-per-document), the count-only behavior with limit=0, and the compact vs. verbose output modes. It also explains the shared status vocabulary in detail, including what open/posted/paid/outstanding mean and how they relate to lots. These are meaningful behavioral details not present in the 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 long but every section earns its place: a crisp scope statement, output format summary, shared status vocabulary, and a structured Args list. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the most important information. No filler or redundant restatements of the schema.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description covers the key operational details: pagination via offset, limit=0 count mode, verbose vs. compact output, and the document state vs. settlement state distinction. It also explains the status vocabulary shared across tools, preventing incorrect assumptions. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It provides a complete Args section covering all 7 parameters with allowed values, defaults, and behavioral notes. Each parameter is explained in plain language, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. The only minor gap is omitting 'employee' from the party_type parenthetical, but the opening line mentions employee vouchers, so the intent is still clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List customer invoices, vendor bills, employee vouchers, and credit notes." This clearly states what the tool returns and differentiates it from siblings like get_document (single document) and get_outstanding_documents (subset). The scope is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: "get it directly from get_outstanding_documents rather than deriving it here" and clarifies that the status filter covers only document state, not settlement state. It also explains when to use verbose mode, how pagination works, and which listing pattern job_id supports. This is more than enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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