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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path and field set but says nothing about pagination behaviour or default page size, which lives only in the schema.

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 compact sentences, with the payload contents and the filter stated up front and the endpoint last. No redundant or ceremonial text.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and the endpoint, which is the key missing context. It still leaves pagination flow (using last_synced_at across calls) unstated in prose, a minor gap for a 5-parameter list tool.

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 100%, with kind, state, per_page, project_id and the last_synced_at cursor all documented in-schema. The description's 'Filter by kind' adds no semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('attached in a project') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, kind, size, capture time, file URLs), plus the underlying endpoint. It is unmistakably the attachment lister, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with sibling list tools like list_sheets or list_floorplans.

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?

'Filter by kind' is the only usage instruction and it explains how to narrow results, not when this tool is the right choice versus list_sheets/list_floorplans. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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