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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, aligning with the description's statement of getting a URL (read-only). The description adds behavioral context about access restrictions and prerequisites, which goes beyond annotations.

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 concise with 4 sentences covering purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral notes. Minor redundancy ('Business and community refer to the same thing') could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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?

Despite good usage guidelines, the description omits explanations for 5 optional parameters and does not describe the return value (presigned URL). No output schema is provided, so the description should compensate, which it fails to do.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain any parameters. It mentions communityId, originalname, and mimetype implicitly, but provides no details on meaning, format, or constraints for the 8 parameters.

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 it gets a signed PUT URL for uploading a community video, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_business_video_presigned_url', noting they are interchangeable, which could cause confusion about which to use.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: check business permissions, FREE businesses cannot use, call check_business_tool_access before input collection, show grace-period warnings, and never proceed when blocked. This clearly guides when and how to use the tool.

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