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

Goes well beyond the annotations: one-time use, 30-minute expiry, 4 MB cap, accepted formats, and exact POST encoding. These are the operational constraints an agent needs and none are in the structured fields.

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 return value and dense with useful detail; all sentences earn their place, though the single long paragraph could be split for scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return value (uploadUrl), its lifetime, and the consumer flow, plus the follow-up call. Nothing needed to invoke it 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% and idCredPub is documented there; the description only adds its provenance ('from start_concordium_company_verification'), which is marginal extra meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('returns a one-time link where the user uploads a document') and places it in the flow ('the regular route, step 2'). An agent can distinguish it from get_upload_link / upload_registration_document by the company-verification framing.

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?

Clear usage context: give uploadUrl to the user, or POST the file yourself if you can make HTTP requests, and call again for more documents. It also names the follow-up tool (set_concordium_signatory). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the sibling get_upload_link, so not a full 5.

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