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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real constraint beyond the schema: file_id must have come from create_document_upload_url for THIS specific order, plus the business consequence of omitting the property photo.

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?

Three sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the file_id provenance constraint and the photo/payment nuance. Every sentence adds actionable information with no repetition or filler.

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 and 60% parameter coverage, the description carries real weight and handles the two highest-risk points (file_id origin, optional property photo). It stops short of covering the other document_type values or the outcome of a successful attach, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description adds meaning beyond it for file_id — that it must originate from the upload URL for the same order, not just any upload. It also explains the semantics of one document_type value (property_photo), though filename, order_id and the rest of the enum are left to the schema.

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 and resource ("Dołącza wgrany wcześniej plik do zamówienia") and situates it in the sibling workflow by tying file_id to create_document_upload_url and the order to create_certificate_order. An agent can distinguish this attach step from the upload-URL and order-creation siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives conditional guidance for the property_photo case: it is required to issue the certificate but does not block payment, and the user can supply it on the payment page or later on the order page. This clarifies when the document matters, though it does not state when to prefer this tool over update_certificate_order for other document types.

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