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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the agent's controller role, the free-deploy funding mechanism, the ~1.4 MB decoded size limit, and the fallback tool. This goes well beyond a basic action statement and covers key side effects and constraints.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense and front-loaded with the core action. No filler, no redundant restatement of schema fields, and every clause 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?

For a deployment tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full process, output URL, cost/funding, controller role, size limit, and alternative tool. 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: the agent parameter's consequence (becomes controller) and the files parameter's size constraint and chunking alternative. That extra semantic value justifies a 4.

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+resource: 'Deploy a static website for an agent' and enumerates the concrete steps (create canister, install host, upload files, return URL). Clearly distinguishes from the sibling deploy_upload_chunk by naming it explicitly for larger files.

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 says 'use deploy_upload_chunk for larger files', giving a direct when-to-use vs alternative condition. Also provides the one-free-deploy policy and size limit, which clarify when this tool is the right choice.

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