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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses a hard 100 MB size limit, a required outbound network dependency on code.easyllms.com, the correct remediation if curl is blocked, and the timing guarantee that the download link works once the upload finishes. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot convey.

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 workflow is front-loaded and each sentence carries actionable information: size limit, sequence, network requirement, and failure remediation. The sandbox-settings parenthetical is slightly long but is genuinely load-bearing for recovering from a blocked-curl failure.

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 still tells the agent what comes back (a curl command and a download link) and when it becomes usable. Combined with the network prerequisites and size cap, an agent could invoke this tool correctly and handle the common failure mode 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 all four parameters (path, filename, ttl_hours, content_type) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that `path` must point to a file already saved locally, but adds no format or boundary detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Relay a file of any size up to 100 MB') and outlines the concrete outcome: an upload link plus a curl command. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similar sibling `relay_attached_file`, so an agent comparing the two must infer the difference from the names alone.

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 workflow is spelled out explicitly — save to local disk, call with the path, then run the returned curl command — which tells the agent exactly when and how to use this tool. The missing piece is exclusions: nothing says when to prefer `relay_attached_file` or the other file siblings instead.

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