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

Annotations already signal non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the description adds little beyond the word 'records,' implying a persistent association. It does not disclose side effects like whether attaching a new document replaces an existing one, whether the application must already exist, or whether the S3 file must be pre-uploaded.

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 description is a single sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Using 'AttachDocument' as the subject is mildly redundant, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 5 parameters, a nested applicationId object, an enum, and a closed-world annotation, a 15-word description is inadequate. It omits prerequisites, parameter semantics, and behavioral effects, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it reliably.

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 20%, with only applicationId given a wrapper description. The description mentions 'uploaded file' but does not explain s3Uri, kind, niceClass, contentType, or their relationships. This is insufficient compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'records an uploaded file against the application.' This makes the tool's basic purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like trademark_get_upload_url or documents_create_document, and it begins by restating the tool name 'AttachDocument.'

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trademark_get_upload_url. There is no mention of prerequisites, the upload flow, or when this should or should not be called. Usage must be inferred entirely from the phrase 'uploaded file.'

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