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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely new state context ('a ready file remains private until published in a guide'). It does not explain what happens when verification fails (error vs. partial state), nor why the operation is marked non-idempotent despite offering an idempotency_key.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. The second sentence earns its place by explaining the post-condition; only the very long title duplication adds bulk.

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 verification-and-state-transition tool with a destructive write hint, no output schema and no annotations beyond hints, the description leaves the failure path, the resulting asset state, and the retry/idempotency contract unexplained. What it does say is accurate but minimal for this complexity.

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 67%, so the schema carries most of the weight (company has a description, idempotency_key explains retry reuse). The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all: it never says which asset is verified or that the same idempotency_key should be reused on retry, and the required 'asset' parameter has no description in either place.

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 pair (verify size/signature/SHA-256, then mark ready) on a specific resource (a guide upload's saved private bytes). This clearly separates it from summer_assets_uploads_create and summer_guides_publish, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'then mark a guide upload ready' implies this is the follow-up step after an upload is created, and the privacy sentence hints at the publish boundary, but the description never says 'use this after summer_assets_uploads_create' or states any condition/exclusion. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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