utilpeek: upload a file and get a public link that expires within 24 hours

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds material context beyond them: the link is public to anyone, expires within 24h, disallowed types return 415 without charge, price USD 0.005, no free tier, typical latency under 1 s, and an abuse contact.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and result, and dense with useful constraints, but the 24-hour expiry is repeated three times and the file-type list is duplicated between description and 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation; the description nonetheless covers size limit, accepted and rejected types, cost, latency, expiry ceiling and abuse reporting — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents filename, ttl_hours and content_base64 in detail; the description largely restates them. It does add one genuine transport clarification (raw body or multipart `file` part over HTTP), but that is marginal against a fully documented 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?

Specific verb+resource: uploads a file and returns a public download link, with the expiry window stated up front. It is clearly distinguishable from the many convert/build/render siblings in the list.

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 real usage context: every call stores a new copy under a new link (so repeat calls are not idempotent), the HTTP raw-body/multipart alternative for supplying content, and the accepted input classes. It does not name an alternative sibling or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it stops short of the top score.

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