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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to carry the safety story. It adds real value by naming this a presigned PUT URL, telling the agent it must perform the upload itself. It omits URL expiry, whether the call registers/reserves the document, and size or content-type enforcement beyond the schema pattern.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is slightly under-specified rather than padded, so structure is good but content is thin relative to a 3-parameter tool with a nested required object.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, but the description leaves out critical context for a presigned-URL tool: expiry, the required PUT step, and the full set of supported kinds. For a tool this ambiguous next to formation_get_ocr_upload_url, it does not do enough.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate, but it covers just two of eight kind values and says nothing about mimeType or the wrapped formationId object. The enum values themselves are self-describing, but an agent gets no explanation of how kind affects the returned URL or which combinations are valid.

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 clear verb+resource (returns a presigned PUT URL) and names a document use case, so an agent grasps the basic purpose. However, it says the URL is for a 'cap table or SAFE document' while the schema's kind enum lists eight document kinds (RSA, wire proof, EIN document, fast, stamped certificate, generic document), so the stated scope is inaccurate and will mislead an agent about what this tool supports.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus the closely related sibling formation_get_ocr_upload_url, nor versus formation_get_formation_document_download_url. The only implicit guidance is 'presigned PUT' implying an upload flow, with no prerequisites or exclusions.

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