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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description still adds real context beyond them: visibility rules (org-visible plus team/personal shares), ordering (newest first), the per-item access level returned, cost ('Free'), and the auth requirement (API key or connected account). That is substantive behavioral detail an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 key scoping constraint is front-loaded and the trailing short clauses (access level, cost, auth) are terse and information-dense. The opening sentence is long and stacks several ideas, but no sentence is wasted.

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 does the work of describing what comes back: file identity, access level, and newest-first ordering. Pagination semantics (whether offset pages through a stable ordering, total counts) are the notable omission for a list endpoint with two paging parameters.

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 only 50% — limit is documented but offset carries no description — and the description mentions neither parameter, not even that results are paged. 'Newest first' hints at ordering but there is no parameter to control it, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific resource (boundary files in the organization's library) and its scope (org-visible plus restricted files shared with you or your team), which separates it from get_file and search_boundaries. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is by implication rather than direct routing.

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 visibility scoping ('what you can see') implies the browse-everything use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to search_boundaries or get_file for filtered or single-file lookups. The agent must infer the split from sibling names.

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