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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden—and it delivers. It discloses the return values, the required PUT request with exact Content-Type and Content-Length headers, the 30-minute link expiry, the 256 MB size limit, and the subsequent transcribe_file call. This gives an agent everything needed to understand the operation's behavior and side effects.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, required inputs, return values, upload procedure with a concrete curl example, expiry, size limit, and follow-up step. Information is front-loaded and flows logically from preparation through upload to transcription.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description manually enumerates the return fields and gives enough operational detail (PUT method, headers, expiry, size cap, next step) for an agent to successfully invoke this tool and continue the workflow. Nothing essential is missing for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that size_bytes must be exact and that file_name/size_bytes are the core inputs, but it adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. The mention of content_type is about the response rather than the input parameter, so no significant extra semantic value is provided.

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 title states 'Get a link for uploading a file' and the description confirms it is the route for local files without a public link, returning upload_url, s3_key, and content_type. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like transcribe_url and transcribe_file, which operate on already-available URLs or transcripts.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for a local file that has no public link. It also outlines the next step (pass s3_key and file_name to transcribe_file), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like transcribe_url for files that do have a public link, so it falls short of full when-not/alternatives guidance.

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