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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'retrieves data without changing records' is largely redundant. The one genuinely additive fact is 'without ... spending credits', but the description still says nothing about what the listing contains or whether it is paginated.

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 with the operation front-loaded; nothing is buried. The second sentence spends most of its words repeating the read-only annotation, which dilutes it slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only place to learn what a file listing looks like (ids, names, sizes, pagination). It provides none of that, though the single-parameter surface keeps the tool usable without it.

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 description coverage is reported at 0% and the description never mentions path.id. However there is only one required parameter nested under a wrapper, and the inner schema supplies both a description ('Prospect ID') and an example ('prospect_123'), so the gap is small rather than critical.

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?

'List prospect files' gives a specific verb plus resource and the name scopes it to a single prospect. It is distinguishable from siblings like dealmachine_get_prospects_id_photos and dealmachine_get_prospects_id_notes by resource type, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the closely related dealmachine_get_prospects_id_files_file_id_download, nor any prerequisite or pagination context. The agent must infer the split between listing metadata and downloading content.

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