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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and retry behavior. The description adds that it checks file arrival and queues the job, which is useful context, but it omits error behavior or what happens if the file is missing.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The calling condition is front-loaded, followed by the core behavior, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple job-queuing tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context: when to call and what it does. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists, and this is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (job_id, robot_key) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter details, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('checks the file arrived and queues it') and situates it in the workflow ('after the PUT to upload_url'), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_upload or transcribe_url. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the purpose is clear.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition: 'Call after the PUT to upload_url has finished.' This is a clear prerequisite, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other workflows.

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