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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: ACL checks (files_list for files, none for supported_types), quota behavior (supported_types spends no quota), the former name of supported_types, that neither view mutates or sends mail, and the MCP-vs-REST input-format constraint (UTF-8 only vs PDF/Excel).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized by view, with each sentence carrying distinct information. It is fairly dense and the opening fragment "File catalog reads" is slightly clipped, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Despite there being no output schema, the description sketches the return shapes ({files}; kinds/extensions/mimeTypes/extract notes) and discloses the key operational constraints. An agent has everything needed to select a view and 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by restating view effects in the narrative (ACL/quota per view) and clarifying that namespace filtering is optional and ignored by supported_types, adding context the schema only partly conveys.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("File catalog reads") and then enumerates both operating modes with their exact contents. It clearly distinguishes itself from index_document by stating "Use index_document to upload," so an agent can route without inspecting the 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?

Explicitly ties each view to its condition (view=files for upload metadata filtered by namespace, view=supported_types for the type catalog) and names the alternative tool for the write case. It further rules out misuse by stating neither view writes, deletes, or sends email.

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