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

Annotations already establish that the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: the two different upload mechanisms (content_base64 vs file_path) and payload size constraints (5MB decoded inline, 25MB local). It doesn't cover auth requirements or failure behavior, but the annotation baseline lowers that need.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Each sentence adds necessary operational information about endpoint types and size limits.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is not fully complete. It covers upload methods and limits but omits the access_token/session_id path visible in the schema, doesn't clarify required parameter combinations, and doesn't say what a successful upload returns. It is adequate for simple cases but insufficient for a complex 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 coverage is only 44%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for content_base64 and file_path, plus size limits, but it does not explain key parameter relationships like the alternative access_token+session_id flow or the purpose of task_id and mime_type. This is partial compensation, leaving notable gaps.

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 description states 'Upload a requested applicant document' — a specific verb with a clear resource and context. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like create_intake_session or submit_intake, which handle other stages of the intake workflow.

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 gives explicit operational context: use content_base64 on the hosted MCP endpoint, use file_path for local stdio clients, and notes size limits. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear enough for invocation.

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