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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds substantive context by enumerating the returned access levels, note-visibility rules, creator/member status, and default link/team levels. It does not say what happens if neither param is supplied or if both are passed, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and then the alternative-routing; every sentence carries information. The return-value enumeration is long, but it is justified because no output schema exists, so it is density rather than padding.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly (access levels, version-note visibility, creator info, defaults, member count). Combined with the sibling routing, an agent has what it 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: folder_id for folders, asset_id for assets, and the non-obvious rule that version ids resolve via their asset's settings.

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?

Opens with a specific verb + resource: 'Read the access settings of a folder or an asset.' This is clearly distinct from siblings like members (people listing) and items_update (mutating access), both of which are named.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'It does NOT list individual people - use members', 'To change the link or team access, use items_update ... only when the user asks.' When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all stated.

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