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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does add two useful facts: results are permission-filtered ('authorized') and carry summaries rather than content. It says nothing about ordering or pagination behavior, which matters for a list tool.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the key scope qualifier is placed up front. It is efficient rather than verbose, though the brevity shades into under-specification given the undocumented parameters.

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 and no param descriptions, the description carries the burden for a 2-parameter list tool and does not meet it. Cursor semantics, result ordering, and default page size are all absent from every field an agent can see.

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 0% for two parameters, and the description adds no parameter information at all. The `before` string parameter in particular is completely opaque from every source — its meaning as a pagination cursor must be guessed, and the limit bounds/default go unmentioned.

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 and resource ('List authorized document summaries') and adds a scoping qualifier ('without document content') that implicitly separates it from shareout_get_document. It does not, however, name any sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The phrase 'without document content' is a hint that content retrieval lives elsewhere, but the description never routes the agent to shareout_get_document, shareout_search_templates, or any other sibling.

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