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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context about bulk execution (record_ids) and the optional filtering, which is beneficial. However, it does not disclose how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination) or whether any limits apply, but the bar is lower due to annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is concise: two short paragraphs. The first sentence clearly states the function and optional filter, and the second mentions bulk support. It is front-loaded with the key information. However, the line break after the first sentence is somewhat awkward but not problematic. The content is efficient and earned.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 optional parameters, bulk support) and the lack of an output schema, the description could be more complete. It explains the purpose and optional filtering, but does not describe what the returned files look like (beyond naming attributes) or how the bulk mode behaves (e.g., response aggregation). Annotations cover safety, but the lack of output schema and parameter clarity leaves gaps for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no type info beyond 'string' or 'array of strings'. The description partially compensates by mentioning that filtering is optional and that 'record_ids' enables batch execution, but it does not explain the difference between 'record_id' and 'record_ids' (singular vs plural), nor the roles of 'object' and 'account'. The description's mention of 'objeto/registro' gives vague context, but fails to fully clarify parameter meaning, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 the tool lists CRM files with specific attributes (id, nome, tamanho, status) and optional filtering by object/record. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crm_get_file (which likely retrieves a single file) and crm_download_file (which downloads the file content), and from crm_list_records (which lists records, not files).

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to list files, optionally filtered by attachment) and mentions bulk support via record_ids. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for filtering by other criteria, such as crm_search. The mention of bulk support adds functional context, but exclusions are absent.

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