List uploads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat that this is a safe, non-mutating operation. It adds useful context by indicating that the tool returns a paged list and specifies the file categories (receipts, documents). However, it does not clarify what fields are returned per item or how query filtering works beyond the schema's basic description. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It wastes no words and covers the essential purpose, though it forgoes optional clarifications about response format. It is appropriately concise without being under-specified.

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 would benefit from a hint about the structure of the returned list (e.g., metadata fields like id, name, type). However, an agent can reasonably infer that the response is a list of upload records, and the annotations cover the safety aspects. The description is adequate for basic invocation but lacks richer context that would help an agent anticipate the payload.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (page, query, pageSize), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning—only the mention of 'paging' which mirrors the page/pageSize parameters. It does not elaborate on how these parameters combine or interpret the query text, but the schema already covers the basics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Lists') and the resource ('uploaded files'), and adds specificity by enumerating example file types (receipts, documents) and the paging behavior. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_invoices or list_credit_notes, which target different resources. It goes well beyond the terse title.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the appropriate choice for enumerating uploads, nor does it contrast with get_upload or download_upload for retrieving a single file. The only implicit signal is the word 'list', which is too weak for effective routing.

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