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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds modest value by stating it reads "existing rights only" and identifying the audience (workspace administrator), but adds no detail on output shape, pagination, or failure modes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the exclusion. No filler or 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 single-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and a complete annotation safety profile, the description covers scope and audience adequately. Only minor gaps remain, such as what the returned library/selection data looks like.

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 single projectId parameter is fully documented in the schema itself, including the warning that it is an ID, never a local path. The description contributes nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: shows available business libraries plus the dossier's current selection. It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings, but it never names those siblings or otherwise differentiates itself from tools like inspect_dossier_library_access.

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?

"Reads existing rights only; no grant or upload" serves as a partial exclusion, implying when this is the right call versus a mutating tool. However, it offers no positive when-to-use condition and does not point to the natural alternatives (apply/inspect/prepare/retry dossier library access).

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