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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail not present in structured fields: the required authorization scope (contract_documents:write), which tells the agent about permissions before calling. It does not disclose response behavior or idempotency nuances, but annotations carry that load.

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, no redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded with the prerequisite trailing it. Nothing wastes space.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and authorization, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, the cross-tool workflow dependency (obtaining file_path via create_upload_url before calling) is omitted, which an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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 all six parameters documented, including the note that file_path is a 'Storage path from upload URL response' and file_size is in bytes. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource combination ('Create a contract document record') that cleanly separates it from the many sibling create_* tools, including the near-neighbors create_project_document, create_asset_document, and create_infrastructure_asset_document. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 write-scope prerequisite ('Requires contract_documents:write scope') is useful context to have before invoking, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related ones and, importantly, no mention of the dependency that file_path must come from a prior upload URL flow. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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