spv_documents_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: results are archive-only, each item carries a category, a severity, and archived-PDF status, and critical items (SOMATII, inactivation/VAT-cancellation decisions, risk reports) come with short legal deadlines that create urgency the agent should surface.

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, front-loaded with the core 'what it lists' and then the risk/deadline nuance. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical message-type list is slightly long but reinforces scope.

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?

For a read-only list tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, contents, classification axes, and provenance. What is missing is any hint of the response envelope (total count, pagination behavior) despite page/limit params, but that is a minor gap.

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 every one of the nine parameters is already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail. It does add domain meaning to the severity axis by naming which categories are 'critical', which marginally deepens the schema's flat enum.

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 the archived ANAF SPV inbox for a company') and enumerates what the listing contains (message types, category, severity, archived-PDF status). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like spv_documents_get or spv_documents_stats, so an agent must infer that this is the collection-level read.

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 explains the data provenance ('documents get into the archive through the local storno-agent sync, see spv_sync_prepare'), which tells the agent the archive is pre-populated rather than fetched live here. However, it never states when to pick this over spv_documents_get, spv_documents_stats, or spv_requests_list, and gives no exclusions.

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