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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the 100-result clamp, read-only post_effects, the 'untrusted_content=True' indication, and the special authorization rule for comment owners. It fully aligns with annotations and adds substantial transparency.

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?

The description is structured into clear sections (summary, Args, Returns, when_to_use, preconditions, post_effects) and is front-loaded with a concise purpose statement. Each section earns its place and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers the action, prerequisites, output shape, security/auth context, and post-conditions. It even describes return fields and the id-to-feed relationship with download_document. For a tool with this complexity and an output schema, nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so for entity_id, entity_name, entity_type, and limit, including the allowed entity list and the clamp behavior. However, the correlation_id parameter is not covered, leaving one parameter semantically undocumented.

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?

The description opens with a specific action and scope: 'List a weclapp record's document attachments (up to a 100 limit)'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like download_document and search_entities by identifying the exact resource and verb.

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 description includes an explicit 'when_to_use' section: call before download_document because a document id is only obtainable by listing attachments, and call after an upload to confirm attachment. It also states preconditions such as read access and documentable entity requirements, giving clear guidance on when the tool is appropriate.

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