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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: 30-minute link lifetime, unlimited file count, server retains the original and creates a Markdown copy, the link itself is the only credential (no API key), nameId side effects (DOCUMENT/IMAGE attributes added to the name, file never stored in the name), and the network-access failure mode with remediation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively adds edge cases. Dense with no filler sentences, but the long paragraph on sandbox POSTs and the run-on line about link lifetime make it heavier than it needs to be for a 3-parameter 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description still covers lifetime, capacity, what is stored, credential model, side effects, and the post-call workflow. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and handle failures.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema for nameId by explaining the resulting side effect (a DOCUMENT <id> / IMAGE <id> attribute appended to a Meta info note) and the intent of the field. The 'note' parameter's semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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: 'Get a link where the USER uploads documents ... to keep with a database.' It immediately frames the tool's role (hosted upload page) and distinguishes it from file-importing siblings like import_file/import_from_url and from read_document/list_documents which it references.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Use this whenever a file should be stored in Azquo - NEVER base64 a file into a tool call'), when-not (self-made sandbox files should be POSTed via curlCommand rather than re-uploaded by the user), and the follow-up action ('Afterwards call list_documents'). Routing between this tool and the alternative upload path is fully specified.

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