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

Annotations only declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent profile; the description goes well beyond them with the 25 MB decoded cap, 7-day expiry, 100 MB per-agent quota, the auth requirement, and the returned fields. These operational constraints are exactly what an agent needs and are not available in structured fields.

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 dense sentences front-loaded with purpose, then payload format, then limits and return values. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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 compensates by enumerating the return fields (id, name, size, download url, expiry). Combined with quota, expiry, size limit and auth disclosure, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by clarifying that content_base64 carries the file bytes as a base64 string and reinforcing the decoded-size limit, which links the encoding to the quota constraint. It does not, however, add much on content_type or api_key beyond the schema.

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 (Upload) and resource (file to Oids shared storage) plus the payload format, and distinguishes itself from the download/list siblings by naming the intended consumer (other agents downloading it). An agent can identify this as the write-side counterpart to oids_download_file without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the use case (share a file for other agents to download) which implicitly routes away from oids_download_file and oids_list_files, but never explicitly states when not to use it or names an alternative tool. Clear context, no exclusions.

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