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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent), and the description adds genuinely valuable behavior: the file is uploaded out-of-band via PUT to a returned URL, a browser fallback exists, and the links expire after one hour. It leaves some gaps – no file-size limits, supported format list, or what happens to an abandoned upload session.

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, then the two upload paths are presented as a numbered list, with the follow-up call and expiry note last. The curl example adds concrete value rather than padding, and no sentence is wasted.

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 multi-step, no-output-schema tool this is complete: it describes the returned uploadUrl/uploadHeaders/browserUploadUrl/uploadId, the two ways to consume them, the required follow-up tool, and the one-hour expiry. An agent can orchestrate the whole flow without further information.

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 adds a little beyond the schema by showing how contentType maps to the Content-Type header and how the local path is used in the PUT, but it does not clarify title/fileName behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Start uploading a local audio file to Podwise') and immediately clarifies the crucial scope fact that the file bytes do not pass through this tool. It is easily distinguished from the adjacent complete_audio_upload sibling, which it explicitly names as the follow-up step.

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 gives explicit conditional branches: use the PUT path if you can run shell/HTTP commands, otherwise hand browserUploadUrl to the user. It also names complete_audio_upload as the required next call. It does not, however, compare against source-type siblings such as import_episode, so the agent gets no guidance on when a different import route is preferable.

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