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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, openWorld=false, destructive=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context: the exact success condition (size + content type match, plus checksum when available), the effect (marks row create-eligible), and a non-retry caution implying non-idempotence.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then usage conditions, then behavioral caveats, then a params block. Sentences earn their place, though the REQUIRED/EXAMPLE block partly restates what the input schema already marks as required.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the successful response payload (an additive upload_contract projected from the persisted ready/reconciled row). Coverage is solid, with only connection_context left unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents creative_id's origin and format (UUID from request_upload or creatives_list), but leaves the optional connection_context parameter completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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+resource+scope: 'Verify or safely reconcile a tenant-owned creative in R2.' It names the sibling tools it relates to (request_upload, creatives_list), letting an agent distinguish it from creatives_reconcile without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states both trigger conditions ('after a newly prepared upload' and 'when creatives_list reports readiness.status=verification_pending') and adds a when-not ('Never auto-retry a failed confirmation'). Nothing is left to inference.

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