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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-annotation context: it scopes results to the user's own unexpired uploads, specifies newest-first ordering, enumerates returned fields (ids, names, sizes, download urls, expiry times), and states the api_key requirement. It does not mention pagination behavior or result limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and return contents, followed by the auth note. There is little waste, though the api_key prerequisite partially duplicates schema-level information. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 does the important work of naming the returned fields and their ordering, and it covers auth via api_key. Annotations already handle safety semantics. It is nearly complete, but omits pagination or result-limit behavior that an agent might need for a list endpoint.

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% for the single api_key parameter, and the schema already explains that it can be omitted when the Authorization header is set. The description only restates the requirement without adding format or precedence details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents all parameters.

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: 'List the user's own unexpired file uploads,' with additional scope (own, unexpired) and ordering (newest first). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling file tools like oids_upload_file and oids_download_file by focusing on enumeration. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource 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 only guidance is an auth prerequisite: 'Requires the user's Oids api_key.' There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as oids_download_file, nor any exclusions or conditions. An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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