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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false): the return state ('returns the new item in Processing'), the reversibility rationale ('reaches no one and the item can be archived'), size ceilings (6MB/100MB), and the auth requirement ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'). This is exactly the extra disclosure the safety annotations do not carry.

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-loads the core action and target, then layers constraints in descending importance. Every sentence earns its place, though the leading 'Dext:' prefix duplicates the title and the density of constraints makes it slightly heavy.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so ('returns the new item in Processing'). Combined with permission requirements, size limits, and mode-dependent file types for a 4-param upload tool, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real value by tying each mode enum value to accepted file types and by naming the Costs/Sales inbox targets, which the terse schema descriptions do not fully convey.

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 multiple resources ('Upload a receipt, bill or sales invoice to the Costs or Sales inbox'), then clarifies scope with 'Uploads one file through Add documents.' This unambiguously separates it from sibling dext read/list/archive tools like dext_list_items or dext_archive_items.

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 clear operational context and conditional guidance: mode determines accepted file types ('one_per_file takes PDF, JPG, PNG or ZIP; one_per_page and auto_split take PDF only') and it notes it 'runs without asking' so no confirmation is needed. It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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