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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful content scope ('metadata/approved fields only; no secrets, contacts or original files'), but says nothing about pagination behavior, result size limits, or what 'authorised' means operationally.

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 tight sentences with the content-scope constraint front-loaded and no inflated boilerplate. The phrase 'through the existing application' is the only dead weight.

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 and 0% parameter documentation, the description should carry more load. It omits result shape, pagination semantics (default 50, max 100, offset cap 25000), and the meaning of 'authorised', so an agent cannot invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the three parameters (limit, offset, query) are undocumented everywhere. The description never mentions that query filters results or that limit/offset paginate, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from the schema alone.

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?

Names a specific verb (Read) and resource (authorised document library), which distinguishes it from narrower siblings like list_employee_documents and list_location_documents at the level of scope. However it never names or contrasts an actual sibling, and 'through the existing application' adds no distinguishing meaning.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The qualifier 'authorised' hints at a permission-scoped listing, but an agent cannot tell from the description whether to pick this over list_employee_documents, list_location_documents, or list_knowledge_articles for a given request.

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