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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false): discloses quotas (100 files, 5 MB per call, 2 MB per file, 300 files / 80 MB per upload), a 24-hour deletion lifecycle for unbuilt uploads, refused media types, the 20-sheet/50,000-row Excel expansion, PDF text-layer-only extraction with the scanned-PDF failure mode, and the upload-consent key requirement. That is the behavioral detail an agent needs before calling.

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 purpose and the next call, then constraints in rough priority order. It is dense and semicolon-chained rather than cleanly sectioned, but nearly every clause carries operational information (formats, limits, lifecycle, fallbacks) rather than 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?

For a two-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description supplies the full operating picture: prerequisites (upload consent key), size and count ceilings, expiry, unsupported types, failure handling, and the required follow-up call. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the leading folder name becomes the system in the map, a shared root folder must be omitted, and the accepted content formats and encoding pairing are spelled out. It stops short of clarifying edge cases like path collisions or how upload_id interacts with a fresh files array.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Upload export files into your human's workspace to build or rebuild their map') and immediately names the follow-up sibling, build_map. An agent can distinguish this from build_map and list_sources without opening a 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?

Explicit sequencing ('then call build_map'), an incremental-add path ('call again with the returned upload_id'), and two concrete fallbacks: ask the human to export into one shared folder with one subfolder per system, or have them upload via Data sources › Scans when files are too large. When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all present.

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