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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail by saying the result is a presigned PUT URL, which tells the agent this tool issues an upload capability rather than performing the upload or returning document content. It does not mention expiry or follow-up steps, but that is a minor gap for a simple URL-returning tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and output type, and no filler. It is as concise as possible while adding the presigned PUT detail.

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 tool with a 6-value kind enum and two optional constrained parameters, the description only addresses cap table/SAFE uploads, making it actively misleading for the other four kinds. The output schema covers the return shape, but the description leaves selection criteria and full input domain unexplained.

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 must compensate, but it adds no semantics for formationId, mimeType, or the kind enum beyond naming two of six values. The enum and regex already exist in the schema; the description doesn't explain how an agent should choose kind or format mimeType.

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 description names a specific operation — returning a presigned PUT URL — and a resource (cap table/SAFE document upload) so an agent can distinguish it from download-oriented siblings. However, it mentions only two of the six kinds in the enum (RSA, wire proof, EIN document, and generic document are omitted), so the stated scope is narrower than the actual tool.

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 explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or exclusion, and no pointer to ambiguity with sibling upload URL tools such as formation_get_ocr_upload_url or formation_get_formation_document_download_url. The phrase 'cap table or SAFE document' weakly implies a use case, but it doesn't guide selection among alternatives or mention the other supported upload kinds.

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