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

Annotations already declare the write/openWorld/non-idempotent profile, and the description adds real value on top: a two-step flow where the returned signed `uploadUrl` is valid only 5 minutes and the actual transfer happens afterwards. That timeout and flow detail is not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the return-value details. Every sentence carries a distinct fact.

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, but the description usefully clarifies the two-step upload semantics and the 5-minute expiry. It stops short of stating auth requirements or what happens if the signed URL expires mid-transfer.

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 100% with both parameters documented including allowed MIME types, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Upload a media file (image or video) to ProductNow storage.' The parenthetical even scopes the accepted file categories, so an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for getting a file into storage, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. auth/workspace requirement), and no mention of alternatives. No sibling upload tool exists to route against, which softens the gap.

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