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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses that the URL is presigned and PUT-method specifically, but omits whether the URL expires, whether the upload must precede an extraction call, and the accepted MIME constraints.

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. It is efficient, though it could spend one more clause on the missing kinds without becoming bloated.

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 explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, with seven upload kinds and a strict MIME pattern, the description leaves the agent guessing about which kinds exist and what the URL is used for.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry the load, yet it names only two of the seven upload kinds in the enum (cap table, SAFE) and says nothing about mimeType constraints or the formationId UUID wrapper.

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 and resource: returns a presigned PUT URL for uploading a document. That is specific enough to distinguish it from read tools, but it fails to distinguish it from the very similar sibling formation_get_ocr_upload_url or trademark_get_upload_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the upload flow it feeds (e.g. follow-up with formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_safe_terms), and no note about when to prefer formation_get_ocr_upload_url instead.

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