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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, default page size, sorting, or result shape for what is clearly a list endpoint.

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 first sentence is duplicated verbatim, and the remaining content is an opaque operation ID plus a redirect. Short, but under-specified rather than efficient — the repetition wastes the most prominent position.

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?

A GET list tool with a nested free-form query object, no output schema, and no annotations gaps still needs to say what is listed and how to filter/paginate. The definition supplies neither, leaving the agent dependent on a second describe_operation call to do anything useful.

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 'query' parameter is a free-form additionalProperties object, so the schema conveys no semantics at all. The description's only compensation is telling the agent to call describe_operation, which shifts the burden rather than explaining the query filters.

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 only restates the endpoint path 'GET /api/files/list' twice, which implies listing files but says nothing about what is listed, what is returned, or how it differs from siblings like get_files_by_id or get_files_extraction_status. An agent learns the HTTP verb and resource noun and nothing more.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusion. The only hint is a pointer to describe_operation for request schemas, which is schema discovery, not usage selection.

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