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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful process detail by explaining that the server runs the 6-gate CaptureVerifier and persists a PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL verdict. It also lists the response fields, giving the agent visibility into the post-upload behavior.

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 four tightly written sentences: purpose first, then encoding details, then verification behavior, then return shape. Every sentence adds useful information and nothing is wasted.

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 absence of an output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and explains the verification workflow. It stops short of covering authentication fallbacks, error cases, or idempotency, but the schema handles parameter-level details and annotations cover the write profile.

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 input schema already documents all eight parameters thoroughly. The description adds only light context about base64 inline bytes and optional C2PA bytes for CC3+ claims, which largely repeats what the schema already says.

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?

Specifies the exact verb (Upload) and resource (capture) along with the verification scope (G1..G6) and supported media types. This distinguishes it operationally from nearby siblings like pcc_capture_challenge and pcc_capture_status without needing to name them.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives to pcc_capture_anchor, pcc_capture_challenge, or pcc_list_verdicts. The CC3+ C2PA note is a conditional parameter requirement, not usage guidance for selecting this tool.

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