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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: metadata-only input, no upload or storage, deterministic/instant response, and the returned limits (files and MB per upload/file, scans per day). It also tells the agent where the answer ends (human upload location plus docs link).

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then input constraint, then outputs. Dense but every clause carries information; the only slight cost is the marketing-flavored opening ('Instant, deterministic') in a single long paragraph.

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, the description takes on the full burden and discharges it: it enumerates the returned systems/files, the limits, and the trailing upload location and docs link. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'relative paths and byte sizes, never contents' clarifies the intended semantics of path and bytes and reinforces the metadata-only constraint. It does not restate the 500-item cap or nesting, so it is not a full 5.

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 and resource — a deterministic preview that maps a company's own systems from file metadata — and immediately scopes what the caller gets back (systems, files, limits). No sibling tool does anything comparable, so an agent can select it without confusion.

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?

Clearly signals the precondition and the correct input: submit export file metadata only, never contents, and nothing is uploaded or stored. It implies the pre-upload context but does not explicitly name an alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls just short of a 5.

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