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

Annotations already declare this read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the categories of metadata returned, but does not disclose error behavior, authorization needs, or any other behavioral nuance.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence covers the core operation and then enumerates the returned metadata categories without fluff. The length is justified by the metadata-rich nature of the tool.

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 one documented parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is almost sufficient on its own. The main missing piece is guidance on when to pick this tool over the many sibling getters for file metadata.

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?

There is only one parameter, file_id, and the schema already explains it fully (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter format, requiredness, or constraints, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed metadata about a specific file'), and the field list makes the scope tangible. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_file_custom_fields or get_file_usage_stats, so it stops short of 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There are no references to alternatives or exclusions, even though the sibling list contains several closely related getters (get_file_custom_fields, get_file_usage_stats) that an agent could confuse with this tool.

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