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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context: it returns status (ready/pending_upload), notes that the response file_id is canonical after content dedup, and directs the PUT action for pending_upload. It does not mention failure modes, but the output schema likely covers that. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every clause serves a purpose: origin of file_id, status handling, and canonical file_id. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides all necessary context: what triggers the tool, what to do with each status, and the dedup nuance. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 has one string parameter file_id with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that file_id originates from request_file_upload or upload_file, and that the response returns a canonical file_id. This gives semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., length) – not necessary given the context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get upload status for a file_id' and specifies the origin (from request_file_upload or upload_file). It differentiates from sibling check_run by targeting file uploads rather than runs. The verb 'get' and resource 'upload status' make the action 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?

It explicitly instructs when to use: after request_file_upload or upload_file. It also provides conditional follow-up actions: if ready, pass to create_design/update_design; if pending_upload, PUT to upload_url. This gives clear guidance on both when to call and what to do next, leaving no ambiguity.

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