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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: one-time link, browser-side encryption with the server never seeing plaintext, account-specific lifetime that must be read from expires_in_minutes rather than assumed, and automatic replacement of an existing proof. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and most sentences carry operational weight (QR delivery, lifetime, follow-up call). It is dense and long, with several sentences devoted to client-specific rendering warnings, but those warnings are actionable rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — it does so explicitly (upload_url, qr_code_url, and qr_svg when requested) and tells the agent which value to prioritize. Combined with the sibling routing and follow-up call, nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns a bump by restating and contextualizing the exclusivity rule (exactly one of identity_id/address_id plus proof_types) and the replacement semantics of proof_types within the workflow. It does not add syntax-level detail the schema lacks, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — generate a one-time browser link (URL + QR code) for uploading proof documents — and immediately scopes it to explicitly chosen proof types on one identity or address. It also names the sibling it is not (create_regulation_upload_link), so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (voluntary/preventive uploads, replacing an existing document), when-not (documents a requirement still demands → create_regulation_upload_link), and the follow-up step (call check_upload_status with the returned token once the user is done). It even pre-empts the delete_proof detour by explaining replacement is automatic.

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