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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing what the call returns (folders plus document metadata/links) and explicitly that no file binary is downloaded, plus the underlying endpoint. It omits pagination/result-size behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the download exclusion, then the endpoint. Every sentence carries information an agent can act on.

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 only one required parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers enough: it says what is returned and what is not. The remaining gap is pagination or ordering behavior for a list endpoint, which is minor for this complexity level.

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%, so the single integer property_id is undocumented in the schema itself. The description partially compensates by embedding the path template GET /v1/properties/{property_id}/documents, which implies property_id identifies the property, but it adds no format, range, or source hints.

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 pair ('Read a property's document folders and document metadata/links') and scopes the result explicitly to folders/metadata rather than file contents. It clarifies a boundary no sibling tool covers, though it does not name an alternative sibling for other document-related needs.

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?

The exclusion 'Does not download files' effectively serves as a when-not cue, and the usage context (reading documents attached to a property) is implied by the resource name. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over e.g. list_property_notes or list_properties, so routing is left to inference.

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