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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations by clarifying it is an instruction helper and that it addresses the limitation of hosted MCP with bare local paths. This provides useful behavioral context without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, both information-dense and front-loaded with the primary use case. The first sentence states the exact scenarios, the second clarifies what it is not. No wasted words.

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 parameterless instruction tool, the description covers the 'when' and 'why' thoroughly. The presence of an output schema presumably details the return content, so the description need not. The tool is simple enough that this is 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; the baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is required.

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 clear purpose: providing instructions for CourseProfiler's REST artifact upload flow and explaining why hosted MCP cannot upload bare local paths. It explicitly labels itself as an instruction helper, not a raw-byte upload tool, distinguishing it from siblings like get_artifact and get_course_submission_requirements.

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 says 'Use this when an assistant needs instructions...' and 'or needs to explain why...', giving explicit triggers. It also implicitly clarifies when not to use it by stating it is not a raw-byte upload tool, which routes agents to alternative tools for actual uploads.

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