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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does so richly: cost ('FREE'), draft (non-final) state, upload mechanics (presigned PUT, 15-minute validity, 4 GiB per file, no key or header), and downstream rejection behavior. It discloses auth requirements, size/time limits, and failure mode beyond anything in the schema.

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?

Purpose and the FREE/draft scoping are front-loaded, and the equivalence to mcg_quote's parameters is stated compactly. It is dense and somewhat run-on in the later sentences, but nearly every clause (validity window, size cap, no-auth note) earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains the return shape (uploads with presigned PUT URLs) and the end-to-end flow to pricing, including the failure mode. For an 8-parameter tool with nested objects, nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that an entry's text is staged immediately while an entry without text yields a presigned URL, and it links draft_id to the follow-up mcg_quote call. That goes beyond the schema's field-level wording.

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 precise verb+resource ('Create a DRAFT simulation') and immediately scopes it against the sibling pricing tool by saying it takes the same kind/spec/study/material/conditions as mcg_quote plus inputs. An agent can distinguish mcg_stage (staging) from mcg_quote (pricing) without opening either 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?

Gives the full workflow explicitly: stage to get upload URLs, HTTP PUT each file, then call mcg_quote with draft_id to price. It names the alternative tool and the exact condition that transitions to it, plus the precondition ('REJECTS with inputs_missing until every declared input has arrived').

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