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

Annotations only declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile; the description adds genuinely new context: the URL is one-time, requires no auth header, and the part is returned on upload. It does not state how long the URL stays valid or what happens if the PUT fails.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key operational detail (no auth header), with zero filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the auth exception. However, for a workflow tool that sits alongside upload_part, omitting how the two relate and how long the one-time URL lives leaves a meaningful gap for correct invocation sequencing.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the allowed file extensions and the CUI/ITAR confirmation). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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+resource (get a one-time URL) and the intended mechanism (HTTP PUT directly, no auth header). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling upload_part, which an agent could easily confuse with this pre-upload step.

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?

'large file' implies a size-based usage condition versus presumably smaller uploads, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or any pointer to upload_part as the alternative path. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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