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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds important behavioral context about access control and permission requirements, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the remaining two provide essential usage guidelines. No extraneous information, and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

While the usage guidelines are thorough, the tool has 10 parameters with no explanations and no output schema. An agent would struggle to understand how to fill parameters like 'type' (enum) or 'fileSize' without additional documentation. The description is incomplete for a complex tool.

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 description does not explain any of the 10 parameters. With 0% schema coverage, the agent has no guidance on what parameters like 'type', 'fileSize', 'partNumber', or 'isMultipart' mean or how to use them. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get signed upload URL details for a folder item upload.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (signed upload URL details for folder item upload), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_folder_item' or 'create_folder_item'. The 'upload' scope is unambiguous.

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 resubscribe links, and never proceed when access is blocked. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool, including a prerequisite check.

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