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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of authorization requirements, whether a missing id errors or returns null, or what the payload looks like.

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?

It is short, but the opening sentence is literally duplicated ('GET /api/files/:id. GET /api/files/:id.'), wasting the most prominent position on repetition rather than on purpose or guidance.

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 tool with nested `query`/`params` objects and no output schema, the description should at minimum describe the returned resource and clarify the split between path params and query params. Instead it defers entirely to describe_operation, leaving the agent without enough information to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 0% and the description explains neither the required `params.id` nor the free-form `query` object. The only implicit hint is that parameters mirror the native REST request, which the agent must chase via describe_operation — far short of compensating for the coverage gap.

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 is only the REST path 'GET /api/files/:id' repeated twice plus an operation ID, which restates the title rather than explaining what the tool returns. It never says what a 'file' resource contains, so an agent cannot distinguish it from get_files_list, get_files_by_id_view, get_files_by_id_links, or get_files_by_id_extract_text.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternative is named. The only steer is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which points at another tool for schema info rather than telling the agent when this tool is the right call.

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