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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds non-obvious behavior: newest-first ordering, include_expired defaulting to false, cursor+limit pagination, and the fact that the call is not metered. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then filtering/paging, then usage and downstream tools; every clause carries information. It is dense rather than padded, though the final sentence bundles several distinct ideas that could be split for faster scanning.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not describe return values; it instead supplies ordering, defaults, pagination, side-effect profile, and the recovery-after-timeout workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 only 29% (session_ids and workspace_tag), but the description compensates by explaining the filter axes (session_ids, direction, state), the include_expired default, and how paging works with limit and cursor. It still does not characterize the state enum values or the limit bounds, so it is not fully self-sufficient.

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 ('Lists or recovers ... upload and download sessions'), scopes it to one workspace, and specifies ordering ('newest first'). The read-only listing framing clearly separates it from the create_upload_sessions / create_download_sessions siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('use it after a timeout before repeating transfer creation') and reinforces it with a no-side-effect rationale ('listing changes nothing'), plus forward pointers to verify_standard_document, open_standard_document, and register. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when…' exclusion, but the condition that selects this tool is unambiguous.

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