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 genuinely new context: it enumerates the returned fields with the status enum and documents the `wiki:attachments:read` API-key scope, which annotations never convey.

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 dense sentences: response contract first, then the identifier pitfall, then the permission scope. Nothing is redundant and the key constraint (UUID vs slug) is front-loaded.

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 discharges that burden by naming the DTO and its fields, including the status enum. Auth scope and the identifier source close the remaining gaps for a simple read-only list tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real disambiguation the schema buries: `pageId` is the page UUID taken from the wiki_get_space_with_pages tree node `id`, explicitly *not* the slug. That pitfall is worth more than a restated field list.

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 ("List every attachment on a wiki page") and immediately names the DTO and its fields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like wiki_delete_attachment or wiki_request_attachment_upload.

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?

"Use to find an attachmentId to reference or delete" gives concrete downstream intent that routes the agent toward wiki_confirm_attachment / wiki_delete_attachment. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the confirm/delete tools by name, so it is slightly short of full alternative coverage.

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