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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false contradicts the description's claim that 'this tool alone moves no bytes and mutates nothing'. This is a direct contradiction, so transparency scores 1 despite useful context about the upload flow.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage and behavioral context. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, trigger condition, return value (presigned PUT URL and curl command), and the required follow-up call. Lacks detail about how episode_slug is determined since it's optional, but overall adequate for a multi-step 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are described in schema. The description adds no additional syntax or semantics beyond noting the use case (StreamYard, Riverside, Zoom), so it meets the baseline of 3.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a one-time upload URL for an episode's source audio'. It specifies the resource and differentiates from siblings by noting it 'moves no bytes' and is followed by publisher_attach_audio.

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 usage condition: 'Use this when an episode shows as awaiting'. It also explains the follow-up workflow (upload then call publisher_attach_audio), giving clear context. However, it doesn't mention alternative tools for other scenarios, but the awaiting trigger is specific.

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