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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results include set_on inheritance from top folders and are limited to resources the person can open. It does not discuss permissions required to run the query or performance characteristics, but it substantially describes observable behavior.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and contains useful behavioral detail, but the second sentence is long and somewhat awkwardly structured. It is informative rather than wasteful, though not tightly concise.

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 value details need not be repeated, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description completes the picture by explaining inheritance via set_on and the limitation that only accessible items are answered. It is sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including path format and project context. The description adds the concept of project-by-name and set_on output semantics, but does not add parameter syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states a specific query purpose: reporting who can see or change a folder/file, with read/write status and project managers. It names the resource and scope but does not explicitly distinguish the tool from likely siblings such as set_access or apply_access.

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?

Usage is implied as a read-only permission lookup with a limitation: it answers only for what the requesting person can open. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of set_access, apply_access, or other access-related siblings.

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