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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false): one-time link, browser-side encryption so the server never sees plaintext, account-specific lifetime with an instruction to quote expires_in_minutes rather than assume a fixed value, and the side effect that did_ids auto-creates the verification on submission. That is meaningful mutation-behavior context annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then params, then return values, then an explicit 'Priority #1' rendering instruction — the structure is deliberate. It is long and includes client-specific QR/markdown-image guidance that borders on verbose, but each block is operational and earns its place for an agent handling link delivery.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the return values (upload_url, qr_code_url, and qr_svg when qr:'svg'), and it covers all 7 parameters plus the follow-up tool call. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and then use the result 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds combination logic the per-field schema text does not: the interplay of identity_id/address_id/requirement_id, how did_ids plus purpose ('registration' vs 'emergency') selects which verification is created, and when emergency_calling_service_id substitutes for did_ids. Useful cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema's field-by-field descriptions.

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+resource ('Generate a one-time browser link (URL + QR code) for encrypted document upload') and immediately distinguishes itself from create_proof_upload_link, create_address_verification, and create_emergency_verification. An agent can pick this tool apart from its closest siblings without opening any 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 conditional routing: pass identity_id/address_id/requirement_id to collect missing proofs, 'If nothing is missing, skip the link and call create_address_verification / create_emergency_verification directly,' use create_proof_upload_link for voluntary uploads, and call check_upload_status after the user finishes. Both the when and the when-not are stated with named alternatives.

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