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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, not idempotent). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations do not carry — the URL is short-lived and private — but it says nothing about what repeated calls do, despite idempotentHint=false, or what credentials/permissions are needed.

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 positive use case and followed by the exclusion. Every clause earns its place, though the opening sentence is dense and conditional.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the usage conditions are well covered. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description was the only place to document the four required inputs, and it says nothing about them — leaving an agent to guess file metadata formats and the meaning of 'confirmed'.

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 description coverage is 0% and all four parameters are required, yet the description mentions none of them. The most confusing one, a 'confirmed' boolean constrained to true, is left entirely unexplained, as are the expected format of mediaType and any size constraints for sizeBytes.

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 names a specific action and artifact: it 'creates a short-lived private upload URL' for delivering an original production file to objekts. That is concrete and distinguishable from the sibling tools (all brief-related), but it never explicitly differentiates itself from those siblings by name or function.

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?

It gives an explicit when: only when the user wants an original production file delivered to objekts and the host cannot pass it natively. It also gives an explicit when-not: do not use it merely to analyze files already in the conversation. This is textbook routing guidance.

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