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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-shape context ('each file's URL, column and kind') but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or limits on the number of files returned, which would be valuable for a listing tool with no output schema.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the return shape and the routing hints. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description does cover the return fields and the follow-up tools, which is the main complexity. However, the parameter semantics gap (table vs. record_id vs. id_column) and the absence of any pagination/limit context leave it only minimally complete.

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 only 33% and the description never explains the three parameters. 'stored on one record' loosely implies record_id, but 'table' and 'id_column' (which has only a terse 'Default id' schema note) are left undocumented in both places, so the description does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files... stored on one record') with concrete examples (photos, PDFs, documents, signatures) and a domain illustration (a job's before/after photos). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_file and view_images, which it explicitly routes to.

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 tells the agent both when to use this tool (to enumerate files on a record) and which alternatives to use for follow-up actions: view_images for viewing photos, read_file for reading document text. This is explicit routing with named alternatives, not implied usage.

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