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

Annotations only declare the generic read-only/idempotent safe-read profile; the description adds substantive behavior on top: that attachments referenced in descriptions and comments are included, that only finished uploads appear, that the list is newest-first, and what an empty result means. It also explains the `uploaded_by` vs `agent_token_id` distinction, which the agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement and the follow-up routing, and the field list earns its place since there is no output schema. Minor waste: the first sentence restates the title verbatim, and `uploaded_by`/`agent_token_id` are explained twice (once in prose, once in the item list).

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the return shape (attachment_id, path, filename, content_type, size_bytes, created_at, uploaded_by, agent_token_id) plus ordering and edge-case behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it or interpret results is missing.

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% with patterns and examples for both required parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only implies issue scoping and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 resource (every file attached to one issue) with an explicit ordering (newest first), a permission scope (anyone who can read the issue), and inclusion rule (files from description and comments). An agent can immediately distinguish this from get_download_url, read_file, and delete_attachment.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('to see which files an issue has before reading or referring to them') and routes to the correct alternative for the follow-up step (get_download_url with attachment_id). It also closes the ambiguity of an empty result ('an empty `items` means the issue has no files').

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