List documents and document groups

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

The description does not contradict annotations; it supplements them with behavioral details (simplified list, unified format, status filtering). Although it doesn't cover all traits (e.g., pagination is implied by parameters), it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a concrete usage example. Every sentence earns its place; no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and provides concrete usage examples (status and expired_filter). Since the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return fields. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's basic use case, though it omits mention of optional parameters like sorting and folder filtering, which are adequately described in the schema.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), detailing their types, defaults, and allowed values. The description does not add substantial new information about the parameters beyond reinforcing the filtering examples. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves a simplified list of documents and document groups, mentions the unified format, and gives concrete usage examples (status filtering). It is distinct from sibling tools which are about specific actions like creating, sending, updating documents.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to fetch lists by status, e.g., waiting-for-me, expired) but does not explicitly state when alternative tools like `get_document` or `view_document` might be more appropriate. The context is sufficient to guide usage, but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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