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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one piece of real behavioral context — that results include storage usage per organisation — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or completeness of the list, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every clause (resource, scope, returned data) earns its place.

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 whose safety profile is fully carried by annotations, the description covers the essentials. The remaining gap is return-shape detail — pagination, ordering, and what 'storage use' contains — but with no output schema this is a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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 the baseline is 4. Nothing about parameter syntax or formats needs explaining, and the description does not introduce any misleading parameter-like claims.

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 ('List') and resource ('the user's Helvedrive organisations'), plus an added qualifier ('with their storage use') that tells the agent what data comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_folder, list_versions, and search_files, though it doesn't explicitly name what separates it from them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives among the sibling tools. Usage is only inferable from the name, and nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over search_files or list_folder.

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