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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context about base64 encoding, supported formats (PDF, JPEG, PNG), maximum size (10MB), and the authentication requirement. It does not contradict the annotations, but it does not elaborate on the destructive hint (e.g., whether uploads overwrite existing documents), which with annotations present is acceptable.

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 three sentences, appropriately sized, with the main action and resource stated first. It efficiently communicates key constraints (formats, max size, authentication) without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (5 parameters), existing output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: purpose, input format, constraints, and authentication. A brief note on the destructive behavior (overwrite?) would have pushed it to 5, but the annotations already signal this and the output schema covers response structure.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that document_type can be 'photo_id' or 'selfie' and that file_base64 must be base64-encoded with format/size constraints, but these details are already in the schema. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 begins with 'Upload a verification document for a medication order,' clearly identifying the action (upload) and the resource (verification document for an order). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like order_documents (likely to list documents) and order_create (to create the order itself).

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 implies when to use this tool: when a verification document (photo ID or selfie) must be uploaded for a medication order. It also notes required authentication, formats, and size limit. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context makes the primary use case clear.

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