List uploads

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description goes beyond them with real behavioral context: expiry windows (images one day, conversion CSVs two hours or until read by a draft) and the fact that upload-link files surface here. It does not mention pagination or ordering, so not a full 5.

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 core purpose and the expiry detail are front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing block of three external API documentation URLs is boilerplate that consumes roughly half the text without helping an agent select or invoke this tool. That bulk dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema already present, the description is largely complete: it explains scope (non-expired), the shape of the results, and the expiry lifetime rules. The only real omission is guidance on when to choose it over sibling read tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty parameter object is self-explanatory.

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 and resource with a scope qualifier: 'List the files the user uploaded to AdLoop that have not expired.' An agent can immediately distinguish this read-side listing from the sibling write tool upload_images without opening a 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (retrieve upload ids for files already sent), and the expiry note hints at why an agent would call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to a sibling alternative. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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