list_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining the savedViewId filter-merging behavior and the credited invoice filter, which are non-obvious. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or return format, leaving some behavioral gaps. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('List documents') and then efficiently explain the savedViewId merging behavior. Every sentence carries essential information, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main filtering options and the savedViewId behavior, but it omits return structure, pagination, and filter combination semantics. It is adequate for basic usage but incomplete for an agent that needs to know exactly what results look like or how to combine filters correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the purpose of most parameters: type, status, contact (contactId), credited invoice (creditedDocumentId), and date range (from/to), plus savedViewId. However, it does not clarify value formats (e.g., date format), whether filters are ANDed, or the role of workspaceId beyond being required. It adds meaning beyond the schema but leaves important details unspecified.

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 documents with multiple specific filters (type, status, contact, credited invoice, date range) and explains the savedViewId behavior. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_document (single retrieval) and list_document_templates (templates), so an agent can identify its purpose without ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_document for a single document, search_global for general search). It implies usage for listing documents but provides no exclusions or conditions for choosing this over other list tools. The savedViewId merging nuance is helpful but does not address tool selection.

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