list_documents

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It mentions ordering (newest first) and that identifiers feed get_document_pdf, but doesn't disclose authentication needs, pagination, rate limits, or what fields are returned beyond identifiers. A call to action like 'requires login' is absent.

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?

One compact sentence with no waste, front-loading the resource and ordering. Slightly dense but all elements earn their place.

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 listing tool with no annotations, the description should say more about auth requirements (the sibling tools suggest login needed) and return format. It covers the essentials but leaves gaps for a tool in a session-based context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; but description adds that the listed items include 'type, number, version and part' which are the identifiers for get_document_pdf, giving context beyond schema. However, it doesn't explain filtering parameters (from/to/kind/search) beyond what schema says.

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 it lists documents in the patient's file, enumerating types (lab results, imaging, visit/hospitalization summaries). It implicitly distinguishes from get_document_pdf by referring to it, though it doesn't name an alternative listing tool (none exists).

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?

Usage is implied: list documents, then use get_document_pdf with the returned type/number/version/part. No explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions, but the connection to the sibling tool is hinted.

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