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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so clearly: it states the tool is not live, always returns planned/not_live, transfers no bytes, and that the REST endpoint returns 501. This prevents an agent from expecting a real file transfer or side effects, which is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure needed for a stub.

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 compact at three sentences, with the key 'not live' and 'no bytes transferred' behavior front-loaded. The 'same signed seats (not live)' phrase is somewhat opaque and may require interpretation, but overall the description avoids padding and provides useful REST context in minimal space.

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 non-functional placeholder, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent the tool is not live, what response to expect (planned/not_live), that no bytes are transferred, and that the underlying endpoint returns 501. It could be more explicit about what an agent should do instead, but the essentials for calling or avoiding this tool are present.

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% and each parameter already has a meaningful description, including 'Filename preview only — not stored' and 'ignored while not live'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, so the baseline of 3 is 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 identifies the tool as file sharing ('file sharing') and clearly states its current stub behavior: always returns planned/not_live and transfers no bytes. Though it lacks an explicit action verb, the tool name 'share_file' plus the description make the intended action and current state clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but its 'not live' status distinguishes it as a placeholder.

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 the tool is not ready for real use ('Coming next', 'not live', 'Always returns planned/not_live') but provides no explicit guidance on when to call it instead of another tool, and no alternative tool is named. An agent must infer that this should not be used for actual file transfer.

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