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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), the description discloses the 15-minute ticket lifetime, the human-approval gate in Settings > MCP, that no change occurs until execute_approved_action is called, and that org admins configure approval requirements. This is substantive behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations or 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?

Front-loaded with 'Use this when...' and ordered along the workflow, so it reads well. The opening clause ('RetailHardHat documents records') is slightly awkward and one sentence could be trimmed, but overall it is dense and purposeful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fully describes the multi-step approval workflow and constraints; the only real gap is not spelling out the required `data` fields, which the schema partially carries via enum and size bounds.

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 one nested `data` parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented fields (contentType enum, fileSize bounds). Instead it says nothing about what `data` must contain, only describing the downstream PUT step. The 'no base64' note is relevant but does not explain the parameter itself.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Request an approved 15-minute upload ticket.' It clearly frames this as a prerequisite step in an upload workflow (PUT bytes to uploadURL, then attach the returned key), which separates it from the many attach_*_document siblings without naming one explicitly.

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?

It gives concrete workflow guidance: request the ticket, PUT the exact bytes to uploadURL, attach the returned key, and call execute_approved_action only after human approval. It also warns 'Never send base64 bytes in this call.' It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative sibling, keeping it below a 5.

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