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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing async indexing semantics ('content becomes queryable once indexing finishes'), the 50MB cap, base64 encoding expectations, auth modes, and a full error map (401/403/404/413/422). Annotations already cover safety/idempotency; the description adds the operational behavior an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by clean Requires/Auth/Errors/Related blocks. Dense with parenthetical detail, but it is organized and nearly every clause carries actionable information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the async lifecycle, auth requirements, default-agent routing, and error codes, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates constraints (1-5 files, base64, 50MB) that the schema already documents, adding only marginal framing rather than new parameter meaning.

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 (upload documents into an agent's knowledge base) with scope qualifiers: 1-5 files, PDF/text, base64, 50MB each. It also distinguishes itself from the legacy variant, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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 explicit prerequisites ('Requires: a selected app (ethora-app-select) or an explicit appId') and names related tools (list/delete). It does not state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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