List your uploads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral traits beyond those: pagination behavior ('50 per page'), the out-of-range page behavior ('returns an empty `data` array, not an error'), and the exact composition of results ('same three link fields `upload_image` returns, plus `title` and `created_at`'). These are not derivable from annotations or schema.

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, each earning its place: purpose+scoping, result-shape, and edge-case behavior. Core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it returns, how pagination works, when to prefer it, and how errors manifest. The output schema handles return structure, so nothing material is missing.

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 100% (the `page` parameter is already documented with type, minimum, and default), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what page means in operation: pages are 50 items each, and an out-of-range page yields an empty array rather than an error. This enriches the schema's bare parameter definition without contradicting it.

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+resource ('List your YourImageShare uploads') and adds concrete scoping details: 'newest first, 50 per page'. It also differentiates from siblings by tying the tool to finding an upload's `id` for `delete_upload`, and by contrast with `upload_image`. An agent can distinguish this from both siblings without opening their schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use this to find an upload's `id` (needed by `delete_upload`) when you only have its URL or remember it by content'. It also states the limiting constraint that should trigger this tool: 'there's no lookup-by-URL endpoint'. This is exactly the kind of routing information an agent needs.

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