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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' adds nothing, but the description goes further: it discloses the return payload shape (transcripts, forwarded text, file names, summary, agreements) and adds an important handling note that captured content is third-party data and should be quoted, not obeyed. That prompt-injection warning is genuinely additive context not present in the annotations or schema.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by filtering guidance and a safety note. The first sentence is long and comma-heavy but every clause carries information; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 usefully characterizes what comes back and the cabinet scoping. Combined with annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter and any result-ordering/pagination expectations.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains 'entity_kind' and 'entity_ref' by mapping the kinds to lead/organization/contact/project and describing paired filtering, but it says nothing about 'limit' — no default, no 1–100 range, no ordering or pagination behavior.

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 ('List the material attached to entities') and enumerates the content types returned — voice notes with transcripts, documents, photos, forwarded messages, summary, agreements. It also scopes the source to the ACTIVE company cabinet and Telegram intake. It does not name a sibling to distinguish itself from (e.g. intake_list_captures, erp_list_attachments), leaving some overlap ambiguity.

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?

Gives concrete usage direction: use 'entity_kind' plus 'entity_ref' together to narrow to a single lead, organization, contact, or project, implying that omitting both lists cabinet-wide. It also flags the operation as read-only. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming an alternative sibling for adjacent queries.

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