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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: async processing, eventual queryability after indexing, base64 encoding, 50MB per-file limit, and ownership/auth requirements. It also enumerates error responses (401/403/413/422), which is valuable operational context. This does not contradict any annotation.

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: four sentences with the core purpose first, followed by constraints, auth/errors, and the alternative tool. Every sentence adds operational value and no content is redundant with the schema beyond acceptable limits.

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 document-upload tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential full picture: what it uploads, how many, size limits, async behavior, auth requirements, ownership, typical errors, and the correct alternative for other auth flows. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds beyond it: appId defaults to the app set via `ethora-app-select`, files are limited to 1–5, and error semantics clarify parameter validation (413/422). These extras help an agent correctly construct the call.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Upload documents (1–5; PDF, text, etc.) into an app's RAG sources'. It also distinguishes this from the v2 sibling by calling out the 'legacy user-auth route', so an agent can identify exactly what this tool does.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative: 'app-token/B2B flows use ethora-sources-docs-upload-v2', and provides the auth context ('user-auth mode, active session; the user must own the app'). It also lists the relevant error codes, which helps the agent decide when this tool applies.

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