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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Reads existing rights only; no grant or upload.' It adds useful context about the concrete scope—available libraries and current selection—and the intended audience. It does not contradict the annotations, and no hidden side effects are implied.

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 two short, purposeful sentences. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the read-only qualifier is placed immediately after. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail.

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, the description covers invocation context, safety behavior, and the high-level informational result. There is no output schema, but the description clearly states what the caller should see: available business libraries and the current selection. Minor gaps are the lack of explicit output structure and non-differentiation from the inspect sibling, but they are not critical for basic selection and invocation.

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?

There is only one parameter, projectId, and the schema description is complete and practical: it is a Helvabase project/mapping ID returned by list or create dossier, never a local path. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides full meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies a read-only query ('Show') over two related resources: available business libraries and the dossier's current selection. It also states that it 'Reads existing rights only; no grant or upload,' which separates it from apply/upload operations. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named 'inspect_dossier_library_access' sibling, so it does not fully disambiguate within the sibling family.

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 provides clear context: this is for a workspace administrator to view the current selection and available libraries. The phrase 'Reads existing rights only; no grant or upload' is an explicit when-not-to-use for modifications. It does not name an alternative tool, so the agent must infer which sibling handles grant/upload operations.

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