spv_documents_list

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state side effects or whether the operation is read-only. It says 'List' which implies non-mutating, but it does not clarify that it does not mark documents as read or modify state. The mention of sync suggests asynchronous behavior but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 and contains no fluff. It effectively communicates the core purpose and critical details. It could be slightly tighter by merging the mention of critical items, but it is concise and well-structured.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately hints at the response contents (categorized messages with severity and PDF status, deadlines). It also references spv_sync_prepare for the ingest mechanism. It does not describe response shape in detail, but the parameters and purpose provide sufficient context for an agent.

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?

All 9 parameters have clear, self-contained descriptions in the schema. The filter parameters (category, severity, unread) and pagination parameters are well-explained. The main description also explains the categories and severity concepts, providing additional context.

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 the tool lists archived ANAF SPV inbox messages for a company, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like spv_documents_get (single document) and spv_documents_download (PDF) by focusing on listing with categories and severity.

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 mentions the sync prerequisite (see spv_sync_prepare) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like spv_documents_stats or spv_documents_get. It implies usage for listing but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.

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