Get an upload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: the signed URL is freshly minted per call, the tool surfaces a three-state result (present / not finished / expired) with a 24-hour cutoff, and it is free. It omits error behavior for unknown or malformed ids and any auth or rate-limit notes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and return payload, then the lifecycle behavior, then cost. No filler and no repetition of the 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming every returned field plus the signed-URL freshness property. The state machine around PUT confirmation is spelled out, which is the one non-obvious behavior for this tool.

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 0%, so the single upload_id parameter is documented only by the pattern in the schema. The description implies provenance (ids come from create_upload) but never states the upl_ format or that the id is required, leaving the schema to carry the rest.

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 ("Read one upload by upload_id") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. The mention of create_upload and the PUT-confirmation role separates it cleanly from the write-side siblings.

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 concrete usage context: call it after create_upload to confirm the PUT completed, and it explains the polling semantics (upload_not_finished until the file lands, upload_expired after 24 hours). It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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