List Missing Documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them by explaining that each result carries a missing_document_id intended as the input to attach_missing_document, tying this read to a specific write workflow. It says nothing about result volume or whether the list is exhaustive.

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, no filler, and the resource definition is front-loaded ahead of the cross-tool hint. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a read-only single-parameter listing tool, the description plus schema gives an agent everything needed to call it and to chain into attach_missing_document.

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% for the single company parameter, including the note that it may be omitted when only one company exists, so the schema does the work. The description contributes no additional meaning about how company scoping affects the result set, which is the correct baseline-3 outcome here.

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 identifies the exact resource and its filter condition: payments flagged by Wint as missing a receipt or invoice. It is specific enough that an agent knows what comes back, though the verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, and no other sibling (e.g. get_receipts) is explicitly contrasted.

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 rather than stated — the agent can infer this is the discovery step before attach_missing_document, which is named explicitly. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_receipts or get_supplier_invoices, and no prerequisites (e.g. Wint connection required) are given.

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