hero_list_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, which is genuine extra context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or auth/rate-limit characteristics. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is an appropriate 3.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the resource and its scope before the optional filtering tip. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields; pagination is covered by the offset schema description, and the nested filters object points the agent at hero_schema. The only gap is the absence of any statement about result size or ordering, which is minor for a read-only list tool.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the schema only says search is 'case-insensitive text filter applied to the results', while the description clarifies what is searchable (document type names). It also implicitly signals that filters go through the GraphQL passthrough documented for the filters param.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus the exact resource (customer documents) and enumerates the document kinds (quotes/Angebote, invoices/Rechnungen, order confirmations), which cleanly separates it from siblings like hero_list_customers and hero_list_projects. It also names the fields returned (number, type, net value, VAT, status, PDF link), so an agent knows what it gets without opening the schema.

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 only guidance is 'Use `search` to filter, e.g. by document type name', which is parameter-usage advice rather than when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives. No exclusions or routing to sibling tools (e.g. when to prefer hero_graphql or hero_schema) are given; usage is implied by the tool name.

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