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

Adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing that the stored file hash is verified and that the response carries document_id and a done state. It does not say what happens when the hash mismatches (error? partial upload?), which is the key failure mode for a finish step, so behavioral coverage is useful but incomplete against annotations that already declare idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world 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?

The English sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the opening 'Finish document upload.' merely restates the title, and the full content is duplicated verbatim in Chinese, roughly doubling length with no added information for a reader of either language.

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 correctly compensates by naming the return values (document_id, done state), and it covers the core two-step upload flow. The remaining gap is error/failure semantics on hash verification and the optionality of request_id, which an agent completing a mutation needs.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does: document_id's role is clear, but request_id is never explained (tracking key? idempotency token?) and the description implies it is needed 'with document_id' even though the schema marks it nullable and optional. That mismatch leaves an agent guessing about a required-vs-optional parameter.

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: finalizes a previously uploaded document by document_id and request_id, with hash verification, and names the return (document_id + done state). The phrase 'previously uploaded' implicitly pairs it with start_document_upload, though that sibling is never named, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

'Finish a previously uploaded document_id' implies this is the second step after start_document_upload, which is the main usage guidance. However, there are no explicit when/when-not rules, no statement about what happens if called twice (idempotency is implied only via annotations), and no alternative tool named despite start_document_upload being a sibling.

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