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

The description adds real behavioral value beyond the annotations. It translates the idempotentHint into a concrete guarantee ('never a duplicate'), and it discloses asynchronous conversion and private-by-default visibility — both absent from the annotations. readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false are consistent with 'finalises' and the repeat-safety claim, so there is no contradiction.

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 short sentences with no filler; each earns its place: the core action, the idempotency guarantee, and the async-plus-privacy caveats. The most operationally critical information (check status, private until published) appears early and compactly.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational behaviors: what finalizing does, repeat safety, the async handoff to foliade_catalogue_status, and the follow-up publish step. Remaining gaps are the unexplained guest_token parameter and no indication of what the call returns, so it is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameters, but it does not define upload_id or guest_token at all. upload_id's role is weakly inferable from 'an upload that has been received', but guest_token's purpose and when to supply it are completely unexplained. With zero schema coverage, this is a clear gap.

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 title provides a specific verb-resource statement ('Convert the uploaded PDF into a draft'), and the description's 'Finalises an upload that has been received' aligns with it. This is distinguishable from siblings such as foliade_prepare_upload (upload intake) and foliade_publish_catalogue (making public). However, the description itself never names or contrasts those siblings, and 'finalises an upload' is somewhat generic without the title.

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 conveys workflow context: it applies to an upload that has already been received, the result must not be treated as final until foliade_catalogue_status is checked, and the catalogue remains private until published explicitly. This effectively routes the agent through the prepare→finalize→status→publish pipeline, though it never explicitly names alternatives or states when-not-to-use the tool.

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