List transfers

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by detailing the returned fields (size, recipients, download count, expiry date, share link). It does not contradict the annotation. There is no mention of pagination or limits, but for a simple list operation, the description adequately covers behavior.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads use cases in an engaging question format, and the second lists the output fields. No wasted words, and the structure guides the agent efficiently.

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?

Given no output schema, the description enumerates the returned data fields (size, recipients, download count, expiry date, share link). It also implies the scope ('recent transfers'). While it doesn't mention pagination or sorting, the tool is simple with no parameters, so the description is largely complete for selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers everything. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to add parameter details since none exist.

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 clearly states the tool lists recent transfers and answers specific questions (what sent recently, expiring soon, unpicked, etc.). It names the resource (transfers) and the action (list). It implicitly distinguishes from get_transfer (single transfer) and get_transfer_downloads (downloads) by focusing on a broad list.

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 opens with explicit use cases ('what have I sent recently? what is expiring soon? which deliveries has nobody picked up? who did I send that to?'), which tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the use-case framing provides clear context.

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