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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: chunked line-numbered output, and the follow-up workflow of passing `{{file-id}}` into other tool inputs to get full parsed content.

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 front-loads the core purpose and the length is reasonable for the workflow described. It is slightly padded: "Returns formatted text with line numbers" restates the opening sentence and the third sentence adds little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still usefully covers the trigger, the chunked-inspection use case, and the downstream `{{file-id}}` flow. The main omission is any distinction from the sibling `get_file_url`.

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%, so `limit`, `offset`, and `file_id` are already fully documented in the schema. The description only alludes to chunked reading and sample-row inspection, adding no syntax or default details beyond what the schema supplies. Baseline 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: inspect a file previously returned by an operation, rendered as numbered lines. It clearly scopes the input to files carrying a `file_id`. It does not differentiate from the sibling `get_file_url`, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

It states a clear trigger -- use when an operation returns a `file_id` and you want to inspect contents before deciding next steps -- and names the file types it suits (exported JSON, CSV, logs). No explicit when-not condition or named alternative is given, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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