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

The description states the tool generates a PUT URL for uploading, which is a write operation, yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. While the description adds context about permission checks, the contradiction severely undermines transparency.

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 description is relatively concise at 6 sentences, with the purpose stated first. It avoids unnecessary details, though the phrase 'Business and community refer to the same thing and are interchangeable' could be integrated more concisely.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, annotation contradiction), the description is incomplete. It covers permissions and prerequisites well but fails to explain the return value (the signed URL), parameter details, or any post-upload behavior. The contradiction further reduces completeness.

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 input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter's meaning or required format. The description only discusses business permissions, leaving all parameter semantics entirely to the agent to infer from names and schema types.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a signed PUT URL for uploading a community video, and clarifies that 'business' and 'community' are interchangeable. However, there is a sibling tool 'get_community_video_presigned_url' that appears to serve the same purpose, and the description does not differentiate between them, which could confuse an agent.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidelines: check business permissions, note that free businesses cannot use this tool, call 'check_business_tool_access' before collecting inputs, show grace-period warnings, and never proceed when access is blocked. This gives clear when-to-use and prerequisites.

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