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

Annotations already convey that the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and open-world. The description adds limited behavioral context, such as the platform constraint and that photos are separate from posts. It does not elaborate on idempotency (despite the idempotency_key parameter) or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and key constraint. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and limitation but does not explain return values, error conditions, or success behavior. The schema's detailed parameter descriptions compensate somewhat, but the tool lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand its effects without additional context.

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 73%, so the schema already provides meaning for most parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level details, relying on the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: uploading a photo to a connected platform's media gallery, distinct from posts. It specifies the current limitation to 'google_business' only, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'aidelly_create_post' and 'aidelly_upload_media'.

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?

The description indicates when to use the tool (uploading photos to a media gallery) and the platform limitation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool names for other media operations, though the context implies such distinctions.

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