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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is additive — and it delivers: uploads are ephemeral with a 24h TTL, are owner-scoped, and expired vs. nonexistent ids are indistinguishable (both return not-found). That last point is operationally important because it tells the agent not to retry-loop or infer deletion from a not-found.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the use case, then the constraints. No filler, no restatement of the title, and each sentence contributes 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is complete: it says what is returned (extracted text), how to obtain the id, and how failures surface. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as "the upload_id returned by POST /v1/uploads," so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond that: the id is owner-scoped and time-limited, which changes how an agent should treat stale ids it holds.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Read the extracted text of a file uploaded via POST /v1/uploads," which tells an agent exactly what comes back (extracted text, not raw bytes or metadata). It also disambiguates from the transport itself by noting the upload route is plain REST, not this JSON-RPC endpoint. It stops short of naming the obvious sibling (list_uploaded_documents) as the way to obtain an upload_id, so the differentiation is clear but not fully routed.

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?

"Use this to pull a user-attached document's content into context by its upload_id" gives a concrete use condition and even states the goal (into context). There are no explicit exclusions and no pointer to the sibling that lists uploads for id discovery, but the context needed to select it is clear.

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