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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, and the description adds substantial non-obvious context: metadata only, no rows or values; paths are masked; `asked` fields may be 'unknown' and must never be guessed; scope-limited keys see only fully-in-scope files. That is exactly the extra behavior an agent needs.

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?

Information is front-loaded (what it is, then per-system/per-file contents, then usage, then caveats) and every clause carries real meaning. The very long, comma-heavy sentences make it denser than ideal to scan, but there is little waste.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly: per-system fields, per-file fields, the `asked` block and its unknowns, and scope-dependent visibility. An agent can call this correctly without opening anything else.

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 100% and the schema already explains that `system` names one system and may be omitted for all. The description's 'Pass system to list one system's files in full' adds only marginal emphasis over the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource — lists the systems and files a workspace's scans read — and immediately scopes it as inventory metadata ('where the data behind the map lives'). The per-system and per-file detail it enumerates (export vs connection, last scan, path, format, record count, objects) makes it unmistakably distinct from the get_* and list_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it: 'Read it before you query a source system, to know which export holds what.' That is clear triggering context, but it names no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition (e.g. vs get_map_overview or get_object).

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