Upload a document to translate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a 24-hour retention window and the concrete idempotency semantics (re-sending the same file yields the same upload_id). It omits failure modes and size limits, but the retention/idempotency detail is real added value.

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, zero padding. The primary action and its ordering constraint come first, followed by return values, then retention/idempotency detail – a well front-loaded structure.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the return values (upload_id, page count) and their consumers. For a 3-parameter upload tool with full annotations, nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100% with all three parameters documented inline (url, filename, content_base64 including size limits). The description only adds acceptable file-format examples, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting – baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (send a source document), the accepted input types (PDF, image, Word), and the returned artifact (upload_id plus page count). It clearly positions itself as a pre-order step, distinguishing it from siblings like get_quote and create_order.

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?

Tells the agent to upload 'before ordering' and names the downstream tools that consume the upload_id (get_quote, create_order), which gives clear context. It does not state any when-not conditions or alternatives, but for a prerequisite step the sequencing guidance is sufficient.

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