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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, providing the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it explains that the tool reports on scan results, lists why certain files were not auto-attached, and notes that renamed files will be picked up on the next scan. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's operational behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and including the most useful detail (un-attachable files with reasons) without extraneous content. Every clause earns its place, making it an excellent example of conciseness for a simple status 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description adequately explains the return content, including the types of file statuses and the actionable purpose (renaming for next scan). It does not provide exact response format, but that is beyond the needed context for agent selection and 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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (tenant_slug and token), giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies: the schema sufficiently documents parameters, and the description does not need to repeat or enhance it.

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 uses a specific and informative phrasing: 'What the connected folder has produced' followed by concrete output categories (files seen, matched, attached, and un-attachable files with reasons). This clearly differentiates it from sibling status tools like publisher_stats or publisher_status by focusing specifically on the connected folder's file processing outcomes.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: to review files that the connected folder has processed, especially those that were not auto-attached due to unclear filenames. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as publisher_stats for different metrics, leaving the guidance only implied.

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