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 returned field set and the underlying endpoint path, which is useful context an agent cannot get from annotations, but says nothing about pagination behavior or permissions.

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?

Three short, front-loaded fragments: resource then scope then endpoint. Slightly telegraphic, and the raw GET path is of marginal value to an agent, but nothing is wasted.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields (id, name, file name, version, floorplan_id, file URLs) and the filtering dimensions. Pagination is handled entirely in the schema, so the omission is minor.

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%, so every filter including state, per_page and the last_synced_at cursor is documented in the schema. The description's 'plan, folder, name or dates' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 concrete verb+resource (list sheets) and clarifies the domain term with '(plan versions)', which helps separate it from the sibling list_floorplans. It does not name any sibling tool explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 plan, folder, name or dates' implies when the filters are useful, but that is closer to parameter summary than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to choose this over fieldwire_list_floorplans or other list endpoints, and no exclusions.

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