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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's remaining job is small. It adds that only metadata (not content) is returned and identifies the underlying Management API endpoint, which is modest but real added context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the API mapping. Efficient, though the endpoint sentence is largely redundant for an agent that only needs to call the tool.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and readOnlyHint, this is nearly complete; 'metadata' implicitly tells the agent what comes back. Nothing critical is missing, though a note on error behavior for unknown file_ids would round it out.

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% and the single file_id parameter is already documented as a UUID. The description adds nothing beyond echoing {file_id} in the endpoint path, 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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('metadata about a specific uploaded file'), and the word 'metadata' usefully distinguishes it from mistral_get_file_url and mistral_list_files. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'a specific uploaded file' hints you need a known file_id, but there is no statement of when to choose this over mistral_get_file_url or mistral_list_files. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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