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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured context: the tool returns metadata only and will not surface document bodies, which sets agent expectations about result 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?

Two short sentences, the usage trigger front-loaded and the important negative constraint second. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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-value structure need not be explained, and the metadata-only boundary is covered. However, for a paginated list tool the description omits any hint that limit/cursor control paging, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and it says nothing about them. Neither the pagination semantics of limit/cursor nor the fact that results are paged is mentioned, leaving the agent to infer pagination behavior from bare property names.

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 concrete action (returning metadata for files) and a concrete scope (the Revensi resource library), so an agent can tell it retrieves resource listings rather than a single resource. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling list tools like list_connectors or list_workflows, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"Use this when the user wants metadata for files saved in their Revensi resource library" gives a clear triggering condition, and "Does not return document bodies" implicitly routes body-fetching needs elsewhere. No explicit named alternative or exclusion is given, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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