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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, non-destructive). The description goes well beyond that, disclosing that the URL is one-time, valid for 15 minutes, requires an HTTP PUT of raw bytes, caps at 2 GB, and rejects externally hosted links. This is rich operational context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 the core action, then constraints and workflow in a logical order. It is on the longer side, but nearly every clause (format list, size cap, PUT example, expiry, next-step routing, exclusion rule, fallback) carries distinct operational value, so waste is minimal.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return contract; it does so by naming upload_url and public_url and explaining the 15-minute validity. Combined with the workflow routing and input constraints, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 50%: file_name is documented in the schema, while file_size_bytes has no description anywhere. The description supplies the 2 GB cap, which indirectly bounds file_size_bytes, but never explains that file_size_bytes should be supplied or what it is for. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial coverage.

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 and resource ('Get a one-time URL to upload a local video or audio file') with scope, supported formats, and size limit. It is clearly the upload-preparation step distinct from its siblings transcribe_media and localize_video, which it names as downstream consumers.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (uploading a local file before transcription/localization), how to use it (HTTP PUT of raw bytes with a concrete curl example), what to do next (pass public_url to transcribe_media or localize_video), and explicit exclusions (only files uploaded here or on ttsforfree.com accepted; YouTube and external links never downloaded). Also provides a fallback when the agent cannot run commands.

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