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

Annotations only declare the write/idempotency profile; the description adds the operational traits that matter: two distinct expiries (uploadUrl in minutes vs ticket in a day), the required PUT-then-import sequencing, the browser handoff path, and polling until the importer stops returning 'awaiting_upload'. This is substantially more than the structured fields convey.

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 token-cost rationale and the core instruction (PUT to uploadUrl, then call the importer with ticketId) are front-loaded, and the fallback and expiry caveats follow in priority order. Dense but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: uploadUrl, headers, ticketId, and handoffUrl are all explained, along with the follow-up polling behavior. Nothing an agent needs to complete the upload flow 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning on top: ticketId is framed as a re-issue handle ('pass ticketId back here for a fresh URL rather than starting over'), and it explains the non-input values uploadUrl and headers that the schema cannot cover. Format's 'required unless refreshing' nuance is reinforced in context.

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 ('get a URL to PUT a local file to') and names the downstream consumers (import_model, import_2d), which distinguishes it from every sibling importer. An agent immediately knows this is the pre-step that avoids shipping bytes through context.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (before import_model/import_2d, to avoid base64 token cost), explicit fallback (handoffUrl when the agent cannot PUT), and explicit recovery path (pass ticketId back for a fresh URL rather than restarting). Alternatives and conditions are all named.

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