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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing async indexing, the 50MB per-file limit, base64 encoding requirement, auth-mode specifics, and expected error codes. This gives the agent a robust behavioral model of the tool without relying on the schema alone.

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 dense and information-rich, front-loading the core purpose before covering async behavior, limits, auth, and errors. Every sentence adds useful information, though the error-code list makes it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 two-parameter upload tool with no output schema, this description covers the essential operational context: what to upload, count and size limits, encoding, auth requirements, async behavior, error outcomes, and related tools. The agent has what it needs to select and invoke the tool 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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds a helpful summary of auth modes and file constraints, but largely restates schema details rather than introducing new parameter-specific 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: uploading documents into an app's RAG sources. It also distinguishes itself as the app-token/B2B variant of `ethora-sources-docs-upload`, which helps differentiate it from the close sibling v1 tool.

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 provides clear context: upload 1–5 documents, async behavior, auth modes, and the appId requirement. It names related list/delete tools, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over site-crawl or other ingestion alternatives, so exclusions are implied rather than explicit.

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