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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the output is a private draft, only public https links are accepted, and the server validates that the link actually returns a PDF. The one caveat is that fetching a public URL arguably interacts with an open world, which is not reconciled with openWorldHint=false, but the description itself is candid about the remote-fetch 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage, constraints, and the next step in a logical sequence. Every sentence earns its place; it is slightly longer than strictly necessary but well organized.

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?

The workflow context (preconditions, https-only rule, server validation, finalize handoff) is complete and useful. However, with a 5-parameter, 0%-coverage schema and no output schema, the description leaves most parameters unexplained, which is a real gap for correctly invoking the tool.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies the url argument ("only public https links are accepted") and mentions upload_id as the handoff token, but title, language, guest_mode, and notice_version are documented nowhere.

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 ("Fetches a PDF that is already online") and the resulting state ("prepares it as a private draft"). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (foliade_prepare_upload) so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ("when the user gives a link, or when your host hands you an attachment as a download URL") and an explicit exclusion with the alternative to use instead ("For a file on the user's machine, use foliade_prepare_upload instead"). It also names the required follow-up tool (foliade_finalize_upload).

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