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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the load, and it does add real behavior: the operation is asynchronous (poll until READY), it produces an editable draft rather than a final plan, and it is confirm-gated to a preview without confirm: true. It doesn't say what happens to an unsaved draft or whether re-running invalidates a prior import.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action and then the follow-up chain, plus a parenthetical for the confirm gate. No filler and nothing an agent needs is buried at the end.

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?

Covers input provenance, the async polling loop, and the required downstream save step, which is enough for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema. Missing only the role of fileName and any failure/timeout behavior when polling.

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 75%, and the description adds provenance for two key parameters (s3Key comes from upload_file, clientId is the target client) and explains confirm as a preview/execute switch, matching the schema. fileName has no description in either place, so it remains opaque.

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 resource: reads an uploaded plan PDF into an editable draft for a client. It also names the upstream source (upload_file) and the downstream steps, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like convert_pdf_plan or share_uploaded_pdf_plan.

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 an explicit sequence: start the import, poll get_plan_import until READY, review, then save_imported_plans. The confirm-gate condition is stated. It doesn't explain when to pick this path over the other PDF/plan import siblings (convert_pdf_plan, share_uploaded_pdf_plan, share_pdf_plan_from_import), which keeps it at 4.

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