Confirm Datasheet Upload

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses a 10¢ charge levied only on success, the fact that bytes are re-hashed and validated as a PDF containing the MPN, that the file is added to the organisation's private library, expected latency (1-3 min, up to 5+), and a full enumeration of failure codes with remedies. This is exactly the kind of cost/side-effect/timing context annotations cannot convey.

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 cost and the core action, then success payload, then failure modes. Dense but nearly every sentence carries operational value; the timing-estimate caveat sentence is the only slightly marginal addition.

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?

With no output schema, the description still enumerates the success return fields (document_id, mpn, sha256, file_size_bytes, status='pending'), the follow-up tool, and all error states. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and handle the result 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it ties the token to its originating tool and documents a 15-minute validity window via the 'token_expired' failure, which the schema does not mention.

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+resource ('Confirms an upload started with request_datasheet_upload') and names the exact input to carry over. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like request_datasheet_upload and check_extraction_status by identifying itself as the second step of the upload flow.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it (after request_datasheet_upload, pass its upload_token) and what to do next (poll check_extraction_status with the MPN). Failure branches even prescribe concrete retry actions, so the agent knows when to retry vs. abandon.

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