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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Free; changes nothing' is largely redundant. The description does add value beyond them by disclosing the required permission scope ('Needs read:library') and the notion of an 'original app-native' receipt, which annotations cannot express. It does not describe what a missing receipt means or what the returned record looks like.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the usage routing follows immediately. Every clause carries either scope, permission, or call-site information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the returned receipt contains or how an agent should act on a not-found result. Instead it invokes the unexplained term 'app-native upload_finalize receipt' and stops. Adequate for a safe two-parameter read, but incomplete for the recovery workflow it advertises.

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%, so the schema carries types (uuid format and pattern via $ref) but no meaning. The description only supplies 'by uploadId and/or clientRequestId', which implies the two identifiers are alternatives. It does not say whether at least one is mandatory or how the two combine when both are supplied, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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: 'Read the original app-native upload_finalize receipt by uploadId and/or clientRequestId.' That distinguishes it from the mutating sibling soclo_library_finalize and from the separate soclo_library_upload_status, and an agent can tell what it returns before 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?

Gives an explicit trigger and an explicit alternative: 'Use it after an interrupted soclo_library_finalize instead of repeating it.' That is a real when-to-use plus a when-not-to. It does not clarify the boundary with the closely named sibling soclo_library_upload_status, which leaves one likely confusion unresolved.

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