cms_business_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it is an 'inventory' which suggests read-only behavior, and the four filter parameters (module, process, tax, query, limit) imply a query/listing operation. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is idempotent, whether results are paginated, or if there are rate limits. The description offers some context but lacks behavioral specifics.

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 that conveys the core functionality and filtering options efficiently. It is front-loaded with the key purpose ('Inventory of ERP business documents') and lists the filters. It could be slightly more concise by removing parenthetical '(42 types)' or reframing, but overall it is well-structured and not 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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'schema/table and ERP process mapping' but does not detail the structure of results (e.g., a list of document objects). The tool has 5 parameters but none are required, and the description doesn't clarify default behavior (e.g., what happens if no filters are provided). It is adequate for a simple filtered listing tool but leaves gaps in return value expectations.

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 100%, so all 5 parameters (limit, query, module, process, tax_only) already have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds value by providing context for the filters (e.g., 'free-text search across document type / table / process' for query, and example values like 'Order-to-Cash' for module), which enriches the schema's minimal descriptions. However, it could further clarify interactions between parameters (e.g., how query and module combine).

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 clearly states that the tool is an inventory of ERP business documents with filtering capabilities by module, process, and tax. It specifies the resource (business documents) with details like 42 types, schema/table, and ERP process mapping, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cms_list_requirements or cms_search_policy. However, it could be more explicit about the primary action (e.g., 'list' or 'search') as the verb is implied rather than stated.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include similar list/search operations (e.g., cms_search_policy, cms_list_requirements), but the description does not explain how this tool is different or when to choose it. For example, it could clarify that this is for ERP document metadata, not compliance checks or risk lookup, but it doesn't.

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