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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is an 'instruction helper' and specifically not a raw-byte upload tool, and explains a limitation of hosted MCP. It does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, but the 'instruction helper' phrasing strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the use case, and every word earns its place. It is compact without sacrificing clarity.

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 zero-parameter instruction tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It explains when to use it, what it provides, and what it does not do. The output schema covers return-value details, so the description need not elaborate further.

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, and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed since the tool takes no inputs.

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 identifies the tool as providing instructions for CourseProfiler's REST artifact upload flow, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('artifact upload requirements'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from a raw-byte MCP upload tool, differentiating it from siblings like get_artifact.

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 opens with 'Use this when' and provides two concrete scenarios: needing instructions for the upload flow or explaining why hosted MCP cannot upload bare local paths. It also includes a when-not by stating it is 'not a raw-byte MCP upload tool,' giving the agent clear boundaries.

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