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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden; it adds useful behavior: results are newest-first, the free monthly quota is shown, and download links expire after an hour while the row/name remains. It does not explicitly describe any side effects, but nothing in the description contradicts the annotations, and 'List' is consistent with the tool name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the core purpose before adding scoping, ordering, result fields, quota, and retention/link-expiry behavior. Every clause earns its place; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 one-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the returned fields, ordering, quota accounting, and link-expiry/retention behavior. An agent has enough information to invoke it and interpret the result 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 coverage is 100% for the only parameter, limit, including bounds and default, so the description does not need to compensate. The phrase 'newest first' in the description aligns with the schema, but the description adds no parameter detail beyond it.

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'), a precise resource ('archives created for your token'), and the content of the listing (entry counts, sizes, names, quota use, newest-first). This clearly separates it from siblings like zip_create or zip_extract, which operate on archives rather than listing history.

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 makes the intended use clear: retrieve the caller's archive-creation history with default/limited rows. It names the access scope ('for your token') and gives the context needed to choose it over mutation tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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