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

Annotations already declare the write/non-idempotent/open-world profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: the backend silently assumes 250 Hz and this mis-times epochs, filters and spectral features, plus the 500MB cap and format-override behavior. It does not cover auth/permission needs or whether re-uploads overwrite, which keeps it from a 5.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and constraints, no filler. The extension list in paragraph one lightly duplicates the schema, which is the only minor redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description still covers side effects, hard limits, format resolution and the sampling_rate pitfall. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining *why* sampling_rate matters (the silent 250 Hz default and its downstream effects) and that format overrides extension-based detection. This rationale is not present in the field descriptions.

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 (upload) on a specific resource (EEG file) with supported extensions and size limit, and names the output artifact (registered path for a custom_data node). It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like data.inspect_file or execution.download_artifact.

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 a strong conditional rule: sampling_rate is REQUIRED for headerless CSV/TSV/TXT, with the consequence spelled out. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools (e.g. data.inspect_file to pre-validate a file), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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