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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the call returns metadata rather than file content, and it requires a specific OAuth scope plus possibly interactive owner approval. It does not describe error or denial behavior when approval is withheld, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the content-vs-metadata distinction, then alternatives, then prerequisites. No filler and nothing repeated from 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?

For a one-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose prerequisites are stated, this is close to complete. The remaining gap is the absence of any output schema combined with no indication of which metadata fields are returned, so the agent knows only that content is excluded.

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 coverage is 100% and the single path parameter is already documented as an explicit in-scope path with a symlink-traversal caveat. The description only re-frames it as "owner-approved commander scope", adding marginal meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read one file/directory metadata") and immediately delimits scope ("in the owner-approved commander scope, not its content"). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (exza_get_home_file_info) and the listing alternative (exza_list_commander_files), so an agent can separate it from adjacent tools without opening any schema.

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 explicit routing rules: use exza_get_home_file_info for a managed-home file, and exza_list_commander_files to enumerate children. It also states prerequisites (account-bound computer:write OAuth plus prompted local owner approval), which tells the agent when the call may be blocked.

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