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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses that the read never grants access or creates a collection, that a collection auto-selects only when exactly one is writable, and that ingestion is separate. These are meaningful behavioral traits not already encoded in the annotations or schema.

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 compact: a clear lead sentence states the primary purpose, followed by two terse sentences explaining selection behavior and the tool's read-only constraints. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, selection semantics, side-effect boundaries, and how ingestion relates. It does not describe the response format, but given the low complexity and rich annotations, this is a minor omission.

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 input schema already fully documents the single projectId parameter, including its pattern and meaning, with schema description coverage at 100%. The tool description adds no material parameter semantics beyond referencing 'this dossier,' so it relies on the schema and warrants the baseline score.

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 the existing business-library collections this dossier can write to,' immediately establishing what the tool does and its scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by tying the operation to a dossier's writable collections rather than generic library lists.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the tool: to list collections a dossier can write to and select one authorized by the responsible person. It explicitly excludes access-granting and collection creation, though it does not name alternative sibling tools; the situational boundaries are still clear.

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