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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the return payload shape and the follow-up call pattern, which is real value beyond the annotations; only pagination/limits are unaddressed.

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 segments: what it does, what it returns, and how to chain it — front-loaded with zero filler. The trailing 'GET /api/v1/files' is a compact implementation hint that some agents find useful.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields. For a read-only two-param tool whose annotations cover safety, the only omission is whether results are paginated or bounded.

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% — both 'table' and 'record_id' are documented in the schema, including the pointer to method_list_tables. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 ('List the files attached to a record') plus the exact fields returned (name, size, adder, id). An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like method_get_file_url or method_get_record.

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?

Clearly positions the tool as the discovery step before method_get_file_url ('Use the id with method_get_file_url'), which is an explicit alternative chaining cue. It doesn't state when not to use it (e.g., for a single known file id), but the workflow context is clear.

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