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 covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond noting describe_operation exists — no mention of whether extraction is synchronous or async, expected latency, or what happens if the file has no extractable text.

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 endpoint string is duplicated verbatim, which is pure waste, and the remaining content is a bare operation ID plus a schema pointer. There is no front-loaded explanation of capability.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no behavioral annotations beyond safety hints, the description should explain what extraction returns. Instead an agent must call describe_operation to learn anything substantive, which is a real gap for a tool whose output shape is entirely unknown.

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% for a nested 2-parameter object (params.id plus an open-ended query object), and the description contributes zero meaning about either. The agent learns nothing about the id format or what the unbounded query object accepts.

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 repeats the same endpoint path twice and never explains what 'extract-text' does — whether it returns extracted text synchronously, queues a job, or errors when extraction is unavailable. It restates the title rather than elaborating on it, and offers no differentiation from near-siblings like get_files_by_id_search_text or get_files_extraction_status.

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 statement of when to call this versus the sibling extraction-status or search-text tools. The only guidance is a pointer to describe_operation for native request schemas, which is schema lookup, not usage guidance.

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