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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals a key behavioral trait: the tool reconciles a pending row against storage and flips it to 'uploaded' on first success. It also discloses the 1-hour signed URL validity, auth requirements (uploads:read scope), and that it spends no quota. This is rich, non-obvious information.

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 well-structured with front-loaded core information. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter (e.g., the note about dashboard setup without a key could be split or placed last). Still, no waste.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers return values, side effects, authentication, and use cases. It explains the reconciliation behavior, signed URL expiration, and the scope requirement. This is a complete description for a simple but nuanced tool.

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?

The input schema already describes the uploadId parameter with format and length. The description adds critical clarification: 'The bare UUID, not the kamy://asset/... ref.' and points to upload_file as the source. This is meaningful 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?

The description clearly states the tool looks up a stored asset by upload ID and lists the returned fields (filename, contentType, sizeBytes, status, etc.). The verb 'look up' paired with the resource 'stored asset' is specific and distinct from sibling tools like upload_file or get_document.

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 description explicitly says its main use is confirming an out-of-band transfer landed and minting a fresh download link after expiry. It references upload_file as an alternative when the file is too large for inline transfer. This provides clear context, though it stops short of listing all situations where this tool should not be used.

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