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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive characteristics. The description adds value beyond those annotations by specifying what the listing reveals: sharing source, originating company, and permission level. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but that is minor for a simple list tool.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds high-value return-field details without redundancy.

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 a simple, read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly: what is listed, whose perspective is used, and what the response will contain.

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%, and the sole optional companyId parameter is already well described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond indicating that output includes the company, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all knowledge files and folders that have been shared with the current user.' It also states the key output dimensions (who shared, from which company, permission level), which clearly distinguishes it from broader siblings like list_knowledge and list_google_drive_files.

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?

The description makes the usage context clear: use when the current user needs a list of knowledge items shared with them, not a general knowledge inventory. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or point to a sibling, so it lacks the explicit when-not guidance needed for a 5.

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