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

With annotations already indicating non-read-only behavior, the description adds valuable context: 'Uploads it as a downloadable file and returns a capability url (one GET fetches it) plus a share url and password. No account or API key needed.' This clarifies the operational behavior and authentication requirements beyond what annotations convey. It does not contradict any 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 description is exceptionally concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the use case and then describe the mechanism and return values. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return values (capability URL, share URL, password) and the core behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention expiration, but that is covered in the schema's parameter description for expires_days. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters, providing full descriptions for content, filename, password, and expires_days. The description does not add additional parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: sharing text content with another agent or person by uploading it and returning a capability URL, share URL, and password. It uses specific verbs ('Uploads', 'returns') and distinguishes from siblings like share_file and share_conversation by focusing on text content you already have.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('when another AI agent, chat session or person needs text you have'), providing clear context. It also notes 'No account or API key needed,' which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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