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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses link lifetime (15 minutes), single-use behavior ('one-time', 'one link per file'), size ceilings, allowed MIME types, and the notable privacy property that file contents never pass through the conversation. This is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

The critical action and constraints are front-loaded, and the Args block is separated cleanly. Every sentence adds actionable information; there is no filler.

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?

It even describes the two outputs to expect (the curl command and the url) despite an output schema existing, and covers limits, workflow, and exclusions. For a three-param tool with a fully undocumented schema, this is complete.

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 the description must carry the whole burden, and it does: file_name gets an example and usage note, mime_type gets concrete examples, and size_bytes explains how to compute the value ('wc -c < FILE'). No parameter is left ambiguous.

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 opening states a specific verb (get), resource (one-time upload link), and scope constraint (for a LOCAL file to attach to create_website / edit_website). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_asset_upload_urls and from simply passing a public URL.

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?

It spells out the exact workflow (run the returned curl, then put the url in the attachments list of create_website or edit_website) and gives an explicit when-not: 'For a file that is already online, skip this and pass its public URL directly.' Nothing is left to inference.

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