document_series_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful domain transparency the annotations cannot: that each series tracks a current and next available number, which tells the agent what state it is inspecting. It stops short of describing the return payload shape, but the added context is well beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the explanatory domain context. No filler, no repetition of schema fields.

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, so the description usefully explains that each series has a numbering prefix and current/next number, giving the agent a mental model of the returned objects. It does not state ordering, pagination, or whether a default series is flagged, which leaves a modest gap for a 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% and both parameters (type enum, companyId override) are fully documented there. The description's 'optionally filtered by type' and 'active company' phrasing only restates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List all document series') plus scope ('for the active company', 'optionally filtered by type'). It then defines what a document series actually is (numbering prefixes for invoices, proformas, credit notes, delivery notes), which distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like document_series_create or document_series_set_default.

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 'optionally filtered by type' clause implies when to use the filter, and the mention of the active company implies the companyId override scenario. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool (e.g., document_series_create if none exist, or document_series_numbering_decision for number selection), so the agent must infer routing.

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