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

Annotations are all false/default and carry no safety meaning, so the description bears the burden. It adds genuinely useful behavior: the URL is one-time ('jednorazowy'), uses the PUT method, and — critically — MCP never downloads files from the internet, which prevents an agent from assuming it will fetch the byte content. This is real context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The primary return value and method are front-loaded, and the second sentence debunks a common misconception about MCP file handling. Every clause earns its place.

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 correctly names both return values (URL, file_id) and links them into the broader workflow. The one-time nature of the URL is surfaced. Minor gaps remain: URL expiry, upload size limits, and what happens if the upload is never performed, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 50%; access_token, order_id, and mime are documented in the schema, while filename, size_bytes, and document_type get no prose. The description does not add parameter-level semantics, but it provides flow context that explains why the upload URL and file_id matter for later steps. It partially compensates but does not reach the 4 baseline.

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 ('Zwraca' / returns) tied to a concrete resource: a one-time PUT upload URL plus a file_id. It explicitly names the successor tool add_property_document, so an agent can distinguish this preparation step from the attach step 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?

The workflow is clearly sequenced: first obtain the URL and file_id, then attach the file via add_property_document. The second sentence clarifies the division of labor (the client sends bytes; MCP never fetches them). It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, but the placement in the flow is unambiguous.

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