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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those: it performs a completeness check, kicks off asynchronous processing, and emails the account when the space is ready. The non-idempotent trait is not called out, which is a minor gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, both front-loaded with the core action and outcome. No filler or repetition of schema or annotation content.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the asynchronous outcome via the email notification. It leaves open what happens if files are incomplete, what the immediate response is, and how re-invocation behaves given the non-idempotent annotation, but covers the essential flow.

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 space_id, notes, output, and submit in detail (including enum semantics). The description adds no parameter-level information at all, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: it checks uploaded files for completeness and submits the space for processing. This clearly positions it as the finalization step in the upload pipeline, distinct from upload_files and space_status. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the pipeline position (after upload_files, before wait_for_tour). The description never states when to call it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing all files uploaded first. Adequate context but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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