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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the full burden and delivers: MIME types, 100 MB cap, single-use link with 15-minute expiry, two delivery forms with field names (browserUrl, uploadEndpoint, curl), and the mandatory polling step. Nothing about the interaction lifecycle is left implicit.

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 capability then return values then follow-up, and every sentence carries information. The trailing Hebrew document-type list is long but functions as domain vocabulary for matching user phrasing, so it mostly earns its space; the text is dense but not padded.

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 fully specifies the return payload shape and expiry semantics, plus the next tool to call. For a one-parameter creation tool this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly on the first try.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description still adds value by explaining that appendToMortgageId appends pages to an already-uploaded offer rather than creating a new mortgage. The behavioral consequence (pages merged vs new document) is stated, though no ID-format or discovery guidance is given.

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 ('Starts an upload of a mortgage document') with concrete constraints (PDF/JPG/PNG, 100 MB) and names the exact return artifacts. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_share_link and get_upload_status.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Use when the user has a document to check: ...') and names the required follow-up ('Then poll get_upload_status with the ticket'). It also clarifies the appendToMortgageId case versus a fresh upload, giving the agent a routing decision.

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