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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: default filtering out archived attachments, pagination, and the per-row attachment_uuid with its `kb-attachment://<uuid>` embed syntax.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the default filtering behavior, then the practically important uuid detail. Nothing is redundant.

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 values needn't be spelled out, and the description still gives the one return detail that matters operationally (the uuid embed format). For a read-only paginated list the entry is essentially complete; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 all five parameters including limit/offset and the tenant_slug fallback rule are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the include_archived default; it adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond the structured fields.

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 verb and resource ('Paginated list of a document's attachments') with scope immediately clear. Among siblings (kb_attachments_get, archive, restore, list) an agent can pick this one without opening a schema.

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 'Active (non-archived) only by default' clause implies when this listing is and isn't sufficient, but the description never explicitly names alternatives such as kb_attachments_get for a single item or the archive/restore siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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