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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the file is parsed for specific fields (vehicle, mileage, offer, insurer, loss date), the preliminary estimate is refreshed, and processing may take up to two minutes. This gives an agent reasonable expectations about side effects and latency.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second explains the processing side effect, and the third sets latency expectations. Every sentence earns its place and the key information 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?

For a 4-parameter upload with no output schema, the description covers the action, the parsed fields, the downstream refresh, and the expected latency. It does not explicitly describe an asynchronous polling flow, but the poll_token parameter and the two-minute latency note make that behavior reasonably inferable.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each of the four required parameters already has a clear, purpose-specific description. The tool description adds useful context about what is parsed from the PDF but does not add parameter-level constraints or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Attach'), a specific resource (the insurer's Market Valuation Report as a CCC/Mitchell PDF), and the target ('a submitted intake'), along with the downstream effect ('refresh the preliminary'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like submit_total_loss_intake, making the tool's role obvious.

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 makes the usage context clear: the report is attached to an already-submitted intake, and the required token is described as being returned on that prior submission. It implies the correct workflow position relative to the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or say when not to use it.

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