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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait: the response is limited to file names, not file contents — an important expectation-setter beyond 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?

One front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first and the scope-limiting caveat in a compact parenthetical. No wasted words.

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 one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete — it even discloses the return shape (names, not contents). Minor gap: no mention of volume, ordering, or empty-result behavior.

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 100% and the single INN parameter is fully documented with a digit pattern in the schema. The description merely repeats the INN scoping without adding format or interpretation detail, 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 (list) and resource (accounting-reporting files of an organization) scoped by INN, which cleanly separates it from data-returning siblings like org_financials. It does not, however, name any sibling it should be preferred over or paired with.

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 parenthetical explicitly sets a boundary: the tool returns file names only, and file contents must be fetched via the site's external file access rather than this tool. That is real when-not-to-use guidance, though no alternative MCP tool is named.

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