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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral details: the possibility of choice_required (source stored but waiting for enrichment) and the server limitation (cannot read local filesystem). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't mention rate limits or auth.

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 concise, with the primary action and key parameters front-loaded. The additional details about choice_required and filesystem limitations are relevant and not excessive. It could be slightly more condensed, but it's well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, two input modes), the description covers the essential usage patterns and explains edge cases. The reference to cortex_choose_enrichment for post-ingestion actions is helpful. However, it doesn't clarify return values (no output schema), and the relationship to siblings could be more explicit.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, only restating the relationship between content/filename and files. No new meaning is added for parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose: pushing a document into memory for searchability. It explicitly describes the input modes (content+filename or files array) and the default feed. It doesn't explicitly name siblings to distinguish itself, but given the context, it's clear this is for direct document ingestion as opposed to cortex_ingest_conversation.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: for pushing documents into memory. It contrasts with cortex_choose_enrichment and the local filesystem limitation, indicating when this tool is not appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like cortex_remember or cortex_ingest_conversation, leaving some ambiguity for agents.

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