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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: file_id is scoped to a specific order and property_photo is required for the certificate. However, it does not explain what happens on repeated calls, whether documents can be replaced, or what the API returns after attaching.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main action, and then adds the two most important caveats: file_id provenance and the property_photo requirement. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the core workflow: upload first, then attach with a scoped file_id, and note the business consequence of missing a property_photo. The lack of an output schema and any statement about response/confirmation is a minor gap, but the action and its prerequisites are fully covered.

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?

The schema describes file_id, order_id, and access_token, covering 60% of parameters. The description adds critical semantics for file_id (must come from create_document_upload_url for the same order) and for document_type (property_photo is required for the certificate). However, filename and other document_type values are left without additional explanation, so the description only partially compensates for the schema coverage gap.

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 action: 'Dołącza wgrany wcześniej plik do zamówienia' (attaches a previously uploaded file to an order). It also distinguishes this from the upload step by explicitly requiring file_id from create_document_upload_url, which separates it from sibling tools.

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 gives clear usage context: the tool is used after a file upload, and it explains the consequence of omitting the property_photo (the user will have to add it on the payment page). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with other sibling mutations, but the prerequisites and business impact are clear.

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