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

Annotations declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the generated link expires after 15 minutes, and file content cannot be transmitted through the tool itself. It does not clarify what happens to the link/upload after expiry or what object is returned, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the what and followed by the platform constraint and the branch logic. Slightly clunky phrasing ('Files cannot travel through this tool, so the page is the way') but no wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description implies a link is produced but does not say how it is returned or what to do with it in the response. For a zero-required-parameter, low-complexity tool with fully described params, this is close to complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the conditional effect of `case_id` (attach vs. create new request). `note`, `business`, and `business_id` are left entirely to their schema text.

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 concrete action and resource: produce a page where the user attaches files for a business, with examples of file kinds (drawings, forms, defect photos). It is distinguishable from siblings like `request` or `ask_business`, though it never explicitly names those alternatives to reinforce the distinction.

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?

It clearly explains the two modes: pass `case_id` to attach files to an existing request, omit it to send files as a new request. It also states why this tool is needed at all ('Files cannot travel through this tool, so the page is the way'). It stops short of naming siblings or exclusions, so not a 5.

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