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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds useful behavioral context: results are newest first, omit links, and describe media metadata such as file names, types and sizes. It does not discuss pagination behavior, but that is partly covered in the schema.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded and efficient. It leads with the core list operation, then immediately explains the return shape and the key alternative for obtaining links.

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 appropriately explains that each item describes media metadata without links and that results are newest first. It does not fully describe pagination or the overall response envelope, but the cursor and limit parameters are documented in the schema.

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%, so all six parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the main filters, especially `type`, `active` and `search`, but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already says, including the search length and case-insensitive matching.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list an agent's AI attachments. It scopes them as photos, albums, videos and documents, specifies newest-first ordering, and clearly distinguishes this from `getAttachmentMedia` by noting that this tool does not return links.

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?

It gives clear usage context for filtering with `type`, `active` and `search`, and explicitly names `getAttachmentMedia` when links are needed. It does not distinguish from all sibling attachment tools such as `get_attachment`, but the media-link alternative is the most important routing clue.

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