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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: "Binary contents are unavailable through MCP," telling the agent it only gets metadata, not files. Pagination/return-volume behavior is still undocumented, keeping 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the scope statement leads and the content-availability caveat follows. Efficient and front-loaded, though the second sentence could be folded in without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. But with 0% schema coverage on both required parameters, the definition leaves a real gap around what objectType/objectId should be, which is the main thing an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 0%, so both parameters (objectId, objectType) are undocumented in structured data. The description does not compensate at all — it never explains what values objectType accepts or what objectId refers to, leaving the agent to guess the object-type vocabulary.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List attachment metadata for an authorized object"), which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from mutating siblings like delete_object_attachment. It stops short of naming a specific sibling, but the read-only listing intent is clear.

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?

"For an authorized object" implies a precondition (you must have access to the parent object), which is mild usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, and no hint at how this differs from other list_* tools beyond the resource name.

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