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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the 202 async response, that routing happens asynchronously, that the agent must poll get_intake, that unroutable files become failed queue rows with a reason rather than being dropped, and the downstream effects (BankStatement + BankEntry rows matched by IBAN, zip expansion).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the routing list, then return/poll behavior. Dense and largely free of filler, though the long enumerated file-type list plus zip note is slightly heavy for a single sentence run-on.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the response (202 + queue row id), the follow-up call (get_intake), failure semantics, and per-file-type routing outcomes — everything an agent needs to invoke and complete the flow.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It clarifies file_base64 as raw bytes base64-encoded, but filename and company_id are left undescribed — company_id in particular is non-obvious in a multi-company context and could need scoping rules. Partial compensation warrants the baseline 3.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Upload ANY file') and immediately pins the scope to the unified intake queue, equating it with the 'Documents → Upload' web-app door. This clearly separates it from the sibling 'upload_document' and from invoice-specific creation tools.

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?

Explicit routing rule: prefer this 'whenever the file is not plainly an invoice', with an enumerated must-use list (bank statements in CAMT.053/CSV/PDF/Excel, journal exports, balance sheets, P&L, VAT filings, mixed zips). It tells the agent both when to use it and, by saying 'not plainly an invoice', when to prefer the invoice path.

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