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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it limits results to active, user-accessible dossiers, explains that data.count equals the returned dossiers, and clarifies that partnerWorkspace is a shared workspace rather than a parent project.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core list operation and followed by output-count and domain-model clarifications. Every sentence adds distinct information without repetition or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key scope, output-count semantics, and a domain caveat about partnerWorkspace. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the remaining gaps such as pagination or ordering are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies because the description cannot add parameter detail beyond an empty schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List active dossiers accessible to the current user in the authorized workspace.' It distinguishes this list operation from sibling dossier-mutating tools like create_dossier and export_dossier by scope, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List active dossiers accessible to the current user in the authorized workspace,' which tells an agent when the tool is applicable. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives such as the various dossier read or access tools.

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