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

The description presents this as a pure read: 'List object names and timestamps, never object contents.' Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which asserts the operation is not read-only — a direct conflict with a listing operation. The auth note adds some context, but the read-only contradiction against the annotation dominates.

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, front-loaded with the core action ('List object names and timestamps') before the auth caveat. Efficient overall, though the second sentence is awkwardly phrased ('enter the Storage project key privately for this exact operation').

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?

For an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should carry weight but instead covers only output shape at a high level and one auth hint. Pagination, filtering, identifier semantics, and the beon_* control parameters are entirely unaddressed, leaving an agent without enough to invoke 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?

The schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, exposing only names and types (offset, prefix, bucket_id, project_ref, approval_id, and several beon_* fields). The description explains none of them — not offset/pagination, not prefix filtering, not which identifier selects the project or bucket — so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 storage object names and timestamps, explicitly scoping out contents. An agent can distinguish this from sibling operations like supabase_list_storage_buckets, supabase_upload_storage_object, and supabase_move_storage_object without opening any 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?

Provides some operational context — 'Management OAuth verifies project access; enter the Storage project key privately for this exact operation' — which hints at auth prerequisites and the sensitive nature of the input. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., list_storage_buckets or get_storage_config), leaving usage conditions implied.

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