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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned metadata fields and explicitly noting bulk/batched execution via file_ids, going beyond what annotations state.

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 lines immediately communicate the core purpose and the bulk capability. There is no redundant content, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and bulk behavior, and the rich annotations provide the safety profile. However, without an output schema and with an unexplained account parameter, plus a possible ambiguity between required file_id and optional file_ids, the tool is not fully self-contained for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters, but it only clarifies file_ids for bulk execution. It does not explain file_id versus file_ids, nor the purpose of account. The schema names alone are insufficient for an agent to confidently construct all valid calls.

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 identifies the resource as a file and explains it returns metadata (name, size, content_type, status, attachment), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crm_download_file or crm_list_files. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' and instead uses a noun phrase, so it is slightly less explicit than ideal.

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 metadata focus implies the tool is used when a caller needs file metadata rather than file content, and the bulk-support note indicates a batch use case. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named.

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